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

Abstract

In the community research literature, the concepts of community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life are widely used but often lack clear and consistent definitions. Despite a substantial body of work across multiple disciplines, scholars frequently struggle to distinguish these terms, resulting in fragmented and sometimes contradictory discourse. This paper reviews and synthesizes existing literature on each concept, highlighting various interpretations, common definitions, and measurement strategies. Rather than aiming to resolve these conceptual inconsistencies, this review aims to serve as a conceptual resource for community researchers seeking to better navigate and apply these three widely used but often inconsistently defined terms. It contributes to both theory and practice by clarifying distinctions and overlaps, guiding future operationalization, and encouraging theoretical precision in community-based research across disciplines. By drawing on a broad interdisciplinary range of sources, this review provides a resource for scholars navigating this complex theoretical landscape and aims to support a more coherent and informed dialogue around these key community-based concepts.

1. Introduction

In the community research literature, three concepts are commonly explored: community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL). Each term is supported by extensive literature spanning multiple disciplines, frameworks, and theoretical approaches. These three terms are often used in conjunction, but their uses and meanings have been prone to conflation. Those familiar with this body of work often describe it as a theoretical quagmire. We are not the first, nor do we anticipate being the last, to note the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding these terms [1,2]. Critiques regarding the absence of precise definitions typically precede scholarly articles, serving as disclaimers to readers about the complexities of these concepts. Scholars, e.g., [1,3,4], have emphasized the necessity to collectively refine the usage, measurement, and interrelations of these terms. Our paper aims to address this gap by reviewing and summarizing the literature pertaining to each concept, tracing their various interpretations, briefly describing common definitions, and detailing how each has been operationalized. The focus of this review is on the conceptualization of these terms. As such, we refrain from providing specific examples of conceptual overlap of the terms in the literature because this could inadvertently overshadow the valuable contributions of that research.

The diversity in usage of these terms among community researchers adds to the confusion when reviewing the literature, indicating a fragmented field where scholars often talk past each other rather than engaging in dialogue. This review contributes to the examination and clarification of how researchers have utilized the terms “community attachment,” “community satisfaction,” and QoL. We selected these three terms because they are frequently used in community research, often imprecisely, and are conceptually entangled in ways that merit focused review. Rather than resolve disparities in conceptualization, this review clarifies the distinctions, overlap, and measurement entanglement among the terms and suggests paths forward. Although the inclusion of QoL might initially appear misaligned with the community-focused scope of this review, its frequent conceptual and measurement overlap with community attachment and community satisfaction warrants careful attention1. In both sociological and interdisciplinary research, QoL is often used—sometimes imprecisely—as a substitute for or proxy of these other concepts, making it essential to clarify where and how these terms diverge and intersect.

This review adopts a conceptual framework rather than a systematic review approach, reflecting the goal of synthesizing and clarifying how community-related concepts are currently defined and used. We employed an iterative search process using Google Scholar, beginning with highly citated works and key terms such as “community attachment,” “community satisfaction,” and “quality of life (QoL).” Our search strategy prioritized breadth and conceptual relevance over exhaustiveness, allowing for greater flexibility in capturing disciplinary variance and evolving definitions. Studies were included if they engaged with one or more of these focal terms in a substantive way, with additional searches conducted for related concepts such as “place attachment” and “neighborhood satisfaction.” When such terms emerged in relevant literature, we traced their conceptual and operational similarities to our core terms. We also used backward citation tracking—examining references from foundational and highly cited works—and forward citation tracking to identify how these concepts have been taken up in more recent studies. Our review primarily includes literature published between 1970 and 2025, encompassing over five decades of scholarship. This broad date range allowed us to capture the evolution of key community concepts over time.

Although not restricted to a specific discipline, our selection and interpretation of terms and sources reflect a sociological orientation. We prioritized sources that addressed conceptual definitions, measurement approaches, and theoretical debates, drawing from sociology, geography, psychology, and related fields. This review of “community attachment,” “community satisfaction,” and “QoL” explores their meanings, uses, and measurement methods, aiming to serve as a conceptual resource for community researchers seeking to better navigate and apply these widely used but often inconsistently defined terms. It contributes to both theory and practice by clarifying distinctions and overlap, guiding future operationalization, and encouraging theoretical precision in community-based research across disciplines.

2. Community Attachment

2.1. History

Community has been a central theme in sociology since the discipline’s inception. The focus on community well-being, including the concept of attachment and its effects on both individuals and broader communities, emerged as a response to the swift social and demographic shifts of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Social theorists such as Durkheim [7], Heidegger [8], Marx [9], Nietzsche [10], Weber [11], and Tönnies [12] investigated the influence of modernity and urbanization on communities and social relationships. Researchers have developed various models to elucidate the nuances of individual community attachment, particularly the linear development model and the systemic model. The linear development model, proposed by urban sociologists like Wirth [13], suggests that changes in population size, density, and infrastructure development can affect levels of community attachment.

The systemic model, grounded in the work of sociologists such as Thomas [14] and Park and Burgess [15,16], gained prominence through the seminal contributions of Kasarda and Janowitz [17]. This model posits that individual characteristics—rather than community attributes—account for variations in community attachment. Influential factors include length of residence, social status, and life stage. Goudy’s analysis of both the linear development model and the systemic model reinforced the findings of Kasarda and Janowitz, favoring the systemic approach to understanding community attachment [18,19]. This model has been widely adopted and modified by researchers such as Beggs et al. [20], who incorporated community size, and others who emphasized the importance of local social networks and friendships [21,22,23,24,25]. Additionally, the community field perspective proposed by Wilkinson [26] offers another framework for examining community attachment. This perspective, as supported by Sundblad and Sapp [27], suggests that social interactions are fundamental to forming community bonds. These theoretical models have been instrumental in shaping research that aims to frame, test, and interpret various aspects of community attachment.

Definitions and measurements of community attachment today predominantly focus on sentiments—how people feel about their community. Scholars, such as Cross [1], have emphasized that attachment to community is variable, nuanced, and multifaceted, although the methods used to measure community attachment may not fully capture this complexity. Typically, community attachment has been conceptualized either as the commitment an individual has to their community, as discussed by Crowe [28], Liu et al. [29], and Sundblad and Sapp [27], or as the sense of rootedness one feels in their community, highlighted by Bernard [30], Brown et al. [3], Flaherty and Brown [31], Hummon [32], Jennings and Krannich [4], and Theodori and Luloff [33].

2.2. Uses of Community Attachment

Conceptualizations of community attachment largely emphasize the social dimensions of community, with the literature underscoring the importance of social ties and interactions in fostering community attachment [22]. Additionally, some frameworks also consider the physical context, acknowledging both the social and physical environments as vital to the development of community attachment [1,34,35,36]. Generally, research portrays community attachment as beneficial, suggesting that those more deeply connected to their community often experience enhanced individual well-being [37]. However, certain studies have raised concerns about the potential drawbacks of strong community attachment, noting that it can sometimes negatively impact individual well-being [38,39].

Table 1. Selected definitions of community attachment.

Citation	Definition
Christenson [40]	A subjective measure of individual well-being aggregated in a community context.
Rothenbuhler et al. [41]	Involves feeling part of the local community, positive evaluation, and affect.
Crowe [28]; Liu et al. [29]	Refers to an individual’s commitment to their place of residence.
Brown et al. [3]; Flaherty and Brown [31]	Describes how sentimentally rooted a person is in a particular geographically bounded community.
Matarrita-Cascante et al. [42]; Theodori [43]	Refers to an emotional state and indicates a sense of rootedness to a specific place.
Brehm et al. [34]	Involves residents’ emotional and sentimental attachments to a particular community.
Trentelman [44]	Refers to connections between residents and their communities, usually referring only to social aspects, and is an indicator of one’s rootedness in one’s community.
Sundblad and Sapp [27]	Involves a feeling of affinity for and a commitment to community which implies a sense of being bound to a geographical area by attraction and commitment.
Erickson et al. [38]	An amalgam of feelings related to the particular geographical locale which includes the extent to which the community has been incorporated into one’s identity and everyday life.

The definitions of community attachment presented were selected based on their prominence in the literature as well as their distinctiveness. The definitions are organized by year of publication, beginning with the oldest definition.

depicts a selection of commonly used definitions of community attachment.

The use and application of community attachment vary significantly depending on the context and location of the study, as well as the variables researchers choose to explore. Location-wise, community attachment is applied to both rural and urban settings. Studies on rural communities often explicitly use the term “community attachment,” while urban studies may opt for terms like “neighborhood attachment” [45,46] or “community sentiment” [47]. Some scholars have raised concerns about the conflation of individual- and community-level attributes in community studies [48].

Community attachment has been explored in relation to a wide array of topics. These include physical and mental health [39,49,50,51], religion [23,29,52], and tourism [53,54]. Community attachment has also been examined in relation to migration [55,56], disasters [39,49], and displacement [57,58]. Additionally, the concept has been linked to issues such as the use of public or green spaces [59,60], ethnicity [58,61], and community participation and action [42,62,63,64,65]. Furthermore, it is applied in studies concerning consumerism [66,67] and social capital [28,62,68]. These diverse applications highlight the adaptability of the concept across various domains and geographical contexts.

The term “community attachment” is predominantly used by sociologists, as highlighted by Trentelman [44]. However, similar concepts exist under various names, each reflecting slight nuances in their definitions and applications across different fields. Terms like “neighborhood attachment” are often used in the context of urban settings and include studies by scholars such as Austin and Baba [69], Bolan [70], and Greif [45], among others [71,72]. These studies focus on the emotional and social engagement people develop within their immediate residential environments. Another related term, “community sentiments,” refers to the feelings and attitudes people have toward their communities, encompassing both emotional attachment and cognitive evaluations, with contributions from Adams [47] and Christenson [40].

Furthermore, “sense of community,” a term used by both sociologists and psychologists, includes aspects of belonging, emotional connection, and participation within the community, with significant discussions by Davidson and Cotter [73] and Pretty et al. [6]. Some [74,75] specifically recognize community attachment as part of the broader “sense of community.” Theodori [43] noted that researchers often use “neighborhood attachment” and “community attachment” interchangeably, suggesting that the difference in usage between these terms is perceived as minimal, allowing scholars to adapt their terminology to best fit the conceptual and geographical scope of their studies.

Place attachment, a concept that generally parallels community attachment, is defined as “the bonding that occurs between individuals and their meaningful environments” (page 1, [76]). This concept is frequently employed among psychologists, geographers, and natural resource social scientists, particularly in fields such as recreation, leisure, and tourism studies. According to Pretty et al. [6], place attachment is currently in the midst of its own theoretical quagmire, characterized by a plethora of definitions, operationalizations, and measurements, as evidenced by contributions from Manzo and Devine-Wright [77], Lewicka [78], Hidalgo [79], Hidalgo and Hernández [80], Khabiri et al. [81], Raymond et al. [82], and Erfani [83].

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. While related, we choose in this paper to highlight community attachment rather than place attachment because of the distinctions in their use, disciplines, and focus. We note that some researchers use the terms interchangeably. Trentelman [44] specifically explored the distinctions between place and community attachment, examining how different disciplines have conceptualized these attachments and arguing that the diversity in the literature for both terms provides researchers with greater exposure to varied ways of thinking about place and community.

2.3. Measurement

Measuring community attachment has been approached in various ways, considering different variables, measures, and dimensions. It has been studied both quantitatively and qualitatively, although qualitative methods are less common than quantitative ones. Qualitative approaches aim to capture the nuances and complexities of people’s feelings, sentiments, and attachments to their community, as noted by Brehm [35]. In quantitative studies, community attachment is often used both as a predictor and an outcome variable [43]. Researchers frequently examine sociodemographic variables such as length of residence and age, which have consistently been predictors of positive community attachment [17,18,21,28,33,54,65]. Additionally, studies have shown that community population size may influence attachment [21,24]. However, results regarding the influence of ecological factors on community attachment remain inconsistent [37].

Researchers have divided community attachment into various dimensions, including social, natural environment, cognitive, and affective or sentimental. This segmentation may reflect modern efforts to grasp the nuanced nature of this concept more accurately [1,4,84]. To measure the different dimensions of community attachment, some researchers employ multiple measures, whereas others use just one or two questions to assess general attachment levels. Notably, Kasarda and Janowitz [17] identified three key variables to measure community attachment: (1) the feeling of belongingness to one’s place of residence; (2) interest in local events; and (3) the emotional response to the possibility of moving. Due to the significant impact of their study, many researchers either adopt these exact measures or develop similar ones based on these criteria.

Questions designed to measure community attachment primarily focus on behavioral or attitudinal aspects, as noted by Crowe [28]. These questions seek to assess behaviors or attitudes that reflect an individual’s attachment to their community. Predominantly, they aim to gauge the extent to which an individual feels a sense of belonging within their community. Commonly used questions in this area typically fall into several categories: feelings of regret at the idea of leaving the community, a sense of belonging within the community, anticipated support from other community members, feeling at home in the community, closeness with others in the community, and level of social involvement within the community. For examples of case studies for community attachment, see studies by Brehm [35], Flaherty and Brown [31], Erickson et al. [38], or Jennings and Krannich [84].

3. Community Satisfaction

3.1. Uses of Community Satisfaction

Sociological research has delved into community satisfaction alongside community attachment. Definitions and operationalizations of community satisfaction vary, but they typically involve an evaluation of one’s local area [44]. Generally, community satisfaction refers to how well a community meets the needs of an individual and is recognized as a multidimensional concept [85,86,87,88]. Researchers often define community satisfaction in terms of individuals’ desires to stay or leave [88]. It is frequently associated with the economic and consumer facets of daily life [38,66,89] and includes social and physical dimensions [28,86,90]. Various aspects of satisfaction have been identified, such as local residential, convenience, interpersonal, and political satisfaction by Fried [91]. Fitz et al. [92] exemplify this by categorizing satisfaction into overall, social life, and infrastructure satisfaction. Community satisfaction, similar to community attachment, has faced criticism for its lack of theoretical consensus [2]. Although there is more consensus on the definition of ‘community satisfaction’ than on community attachment, debates continue over the appropriate level of analysis—whether town, neighborhood, or house—how best to measure satisfaction, and what influences or is influenced by it.

Table 2. Selected definitions of community satisfaction.

Citation	Definition
Deseran [2]	Defines community satisfaction as a subjective assessment, shaped by individual perceptions and experiences.
Guest and Lee [93]	Community satisfaction arises from the feeling that the community meets a variety of needs or goals, as defined by cultural beliefs about the “good life.”
Brown et al. [3]	Measures community satisfaction by how well a community meets mass societal expectations.
Matarrita-Cascante [94]; Potter and Cantarero [95]	Describes it as people’s subjective evaluation of their well-being, measured by how well their local community satisfies their personal needs.
Trentelman [44]	Views it as an evaluative construct that considers residents’ satisfaction with their community.
Erickson et al. [38]	Defines community satisfaction as the extent to which one believes the community facilitates their participation as a “successful” consumer in the larger economy.
Jennings and Krannich [4]	Reflects the community’s utilitarian value in meeting certain basic needs.
Ma [36]	Describes it as a rational expression toward the capability of an area to meet the needs of its residents.

The definitions of community satisfaction presented were selected based on their prominence in the literature as well as their distinctiveness. The definitions are organized by year of publication, beginning with the oldest definition. (Table 2).

depicts the selected definitions of community satisfaction.

Community satisfaction has been explored across various contexts and factors, much like community attachment. Studies have examined it in relation to community size and population density [24,96,97,98,99], migration patterns [90,97,100,101], and levels of community participation [42,62,102]. Other research focuses on the influence of social capital [92,103], the impact of tourism [94,104,105,106], and overall well-being [37]. Internet use and access have also been considered [103,107], as have the dynamics of boomtowns [108,109], crime rates [110], and the aesthetics of place [90,111,112]. Additionally, studies have investigated the effects of race [112] and specific community services and institutions [113,114]. Both rural and urban settings are frequent subjects of community satisfaction research.

Community satisfaction is utilized across various disciplines including psychology, geography, management, economics, and community planning, among others. Like community attachment, there are several terms in the literature that are closely related to community satisfaction. These include community evaluation [47,93], neighborhood satisfaction [46,115,116,117,118,119,120], residential satisfaction [96,121,122,123,124,125,126], and neighborhood evaluation [45,127,128]. Some scholars, such as Miller et al. [129], regard these different terms as more specific forms of community satisfaction, suggesting a nuanced understanding within various fields of study.

3.2. Measurement

Researchers aim to measure residents’ subjective assessments of their communities and analyze factors influencing this satisfaction. Both subjective and objective indicators have been employed to assess community satisfaction [30,86,130,131,132,133]. Objective factors such as socioeconomic variables, including education and income levels, have been shown to impact community satisfaction [102,116,133]. Additionally, both individual and contextual factors are significant in shaping community satisfaction [30,92,130], indicating the complexity of the influences at play.

Similar to studies on community attachment, researchers have developed various quantitative measures to assess community satisfaction. Davies [134], an early sociologist in this field, created a scale that captured satisfaction, widely used in earlier studies [85,135] but not frequently referenced in recent research. Contemporary studies often use a global measure, asking residents one or two general questions about their satisfaction with their community.

In contrast, other studies adopt a more detailed approach, assessing satisfaction through evaluations of various services, amenities, infrastructure, environmental conditions, social ties, and other community aspects. The satisfaction with these specific aspects is considered indicative of general community satisfaction, though debates persist regarding whether satisfaction with services and amenities equates to overall community satisfaction [86,129]. St. John et al. [136] noted that an underlying assumption of this approach is that residents’ satisfaction depends on how they subjectively perceive and evaluate objective community attributes. However, discrepancies often exist between people’s perceptions and the actual conditions of their community [130].

Researchers advocating for complex measures argue that these approaches can develop a more comprehensive conceptual framework and enhance insights into community satisfaction [88,130,137,138]. Conversely, some scholars choose not to use scales or indices to measure community satisfaction, arguing this allows individuals to define the concept personally [122,133]. Questions designed to assess attitudinal or overall satisfaction often fall into categories such as pride in one’s community, the perceived desirability of the community, the desire to stay or leave, and the comparison of the current community to an ideal one. For examples of case studies of community satisfaction, see Crowe [28], Bernard [30], Matarrita-Cascante et al. [94], or McKnight et al. [99].

3.3. Community Satisfaction Versus Community Attachment

Historically, community studies did not often distinguish between community attachment and satisfaction, though there were some exceptions [93,139]. More recent scholarship has established that while community attachment and community satisfaction are closely linked, they are ultimately distinct concepts [3,43]. It is common in the literature for studies on community attachment to also consider community satisfaction, and vice versa. Studies focusing solely on one concept often review and clarify both to highlight their distinctions.

Despite the consensus that community attachment and community satisfaction are separate, there remains debate over their relationship. Some researchers, such as Wasserman [24], Fried [91], St. John et al. [136], and Mesch and Manor [46], view community satisfaction as an indicator of community attachment, suggesting that satisfaction is a component of attachment [1,45]. Hummon [32] places both community attachment and satisfaction under the broader concept of community sentiment. Meanwhile, Brown et al. [3] see them as elements of the overall community experience, noting that community satisfaction relates to the relationship between individuals and larger community institutions, whereas community attachment focuses on interpersonal relationships within the community [89].

Common conceptualizations differentiate community satisfaction and community attachment, depicting the former as logical, rational, and utilitarian, and the latter as sentimental and less rational [4,36]. Connerly and Marans [139] argue that community satisfaction assesses the cognitive aspects of QoL, while community attachment addresses the affective dimensions. However, Theodori [43] challenged the notion that these concepts are strictly divided along cognitive and affective lines, suggesting that both community attachment and satisfaction can encompass elements of both cognition and affect. Additionally, researchers interpret these concepts with varying emphases. For instance, Brown et al. [3] describe community attachment as inherently local, focusing on the immediate relational aspects within a community, whereas they view community satisfaction as reflecting a broader evaluation of the local community, encompassing global considerations. Further studies also explore the distinct outcomes or impacts of community attachment and satisfaction, indicating diverse applications and implications of each concept within the field [38,93].

4. Quality of Life

4.1. Uses of Quality of Life

While each of the three concepts may be studied in aggregate or used to characterize community-level trends, this review focuses on their expression and measurement as individual-level experiences. That is, an individual is attached to their community, is satisfied with their community, and experiences quality of life in context—each reflecting subjective assessments shaped by both personal and social factors. Scholarly efforts to conceptualize and measure QoL have varied widely in approach, reflecting its interdisciplinary nature with significant variations across disciplines and purposes. Although the term QoL predominantly appears in health- or psychology-related studies, its presence is also notable in sociology. This review aims to clarify the use of QoL within this discipline. Building on previous reviews by Schussler and Fisher [140] and Ferriss [141], it focuses on how QoL is used and measured in discussions about individuals’ relationships with their communities.

The concept of QoL has a long-standing presence in the social sciences, extensively discussed by Schlusser and Fisher [140] and Ferriss [141]. Typically, in sociology, QoL is used to denote either a positive outcome for an individual or social system, or as a metric for other outcomes [140]. Some researchers advocate for assessing QoL based on the extent to which human needs are met [142] or as the overall well-being of individuals and societies, considering contextual factors or personal values [143,144]. Understanding respondents’ QoL frequently involves both subjective and objective measures [143,145,146,147].

The concept of QoL in sociology has been explored across various contexts. These include its connection to religion or spirituality, as highlighted by studies such as Kelly [53], Panzini et al. [148], Peterson and Webb [149], Ferris [150]. The relationship between an individual’s community or society and their QoL has also been extensively examined [151,152,153,154]. Additionally, the aging process has been a significant focus, with researchers like Higgs et al. [142], Kane [155], and others [156,157,158] contributing to the discussion. The impact of tourism and development on QoL has been addressed in studies by Khalil [159] and Kim et al. [160], health-related QoL has been analyzed in various works [154,161,162,163], and the role of education in shaping QoL has been studied by Turnbull et al. [164] and others [165,166,167]. For examples of case studies of QoL, see studies by Gattino et al. [154], Strine et al. [162], Winters [165], and Powdthavee et al. [167], among others.

There are both similarities and differences between community attachment, community satisfaction, and QoL. Community satisfaction often influences QoL, but it is considered broader, as it encompasses both objective and subjective indicators [96,104,124]. Unlike community attachment and satisfaction, which focus more on communal aspects, QoL tends to emphasize individual outcomes. However, certain QoL studies do explore elements like community connectedness and belonging [147,168,169,170,171]. Typically, QoL is used to encompass both community attachment and satisfaction, although some research employs QoL-related questions specifically to gauge community satisfaction [172]. While QoL is primarily thought about in individual terms, the conceptualizations and measurements used by researchers to capture QoL often incorporate elements of community attachment and community satisfaction. The measurement of QoL does not always subsume the concepts of community attachment and community satisfaction but given the common indicator questions (see

Table 3. Common indicator categories for QoL measurement.

Categories	Common Question Topics Found in Category Measurement
Family Status	Questions cover demographic characteristics, marital or dating status, and proximity to family or social networks.
Social Relationships and Community	Includes questions about belonging to social groups, community attachment and satisfaction, satisfaction with social life and friendships, community involvement, and access to social capital.
Location and Environment	Questions focus on satisfaction with the physical location, concerns related to environmental or geographical factors [e.g., pollution, safety, crime], a sense of place or place attachment, and access to resources and green spaces.
Education	Questions address the level of education received, application of education, and the burden of educational expenses.
Health	This category includes questions about personal health, health of close social connections, access to healthcare services, frequency of healthcare use, medical expense burden, and mental and emotional health.
Income	Questions, here, cover the number of workers in the household, family or individual income, disposable income, saving capabilities, financial support from community or government, satisfaction with income, debt, and poverty levels.
Employment	Questions pertain to the current employment status, likelihood of job loss, hours worked per week, satisfaction with the work–life balance, satisfaction with employer or work culture, and overall satisfaction with employment status.

Note: Many of the indicators listed here—particularly those related to community involvement, social relationships, and location—are commonly used in studies of community attachment and community satisfaction. This overlap in measurement underscores the potential for conceptual conflation across these terms in the literature.

and Section 4.2) often associated with measurement of QoL, it is not uncommon that there is a significant measurement and conceptual overlap.

There are criticisms of the concept and measurement of QoL, many of which were outlined and responded to by Schussler and Fisher [140]. However, major criticisms of this approach include skepticism toward the reliance on subjective perceptions of individuals as reality [173,174], which is often reliant on social contexts and must be understood within those contexts [38,175]. Other scholars highlight the importance of distinguishing between localized satisfaction and global satisfaction, which are often not adequately addressed in common QoL measures [176], or the issue of combining the various domains of QoL into one measure [155].

4.2. Measurement

While the definitions of QoL across uses and disciplines tend to be similar, the way of measuring this concept is inconsistent. Many studies measure QoL using an indicator scale, where a higher score indicates better QoL. The indicators vary, but common frameworks include the CASP-19 framework [177], the comprehensive quality of life scale [178,179], the quality of life index [180], and approaches by scholars such as Lin [143], Zautra and Goodhart [181], and Gerson [145]. Typically, a higher score on this scale is interpreted as indicating a favorable outcome to treatment or lifestyle. Crucially, sociologists must define and measure QoL by considering both community and individual perspectives [145].

Indicator questions vary across studies, but major categories are detailed in Table 3. This table presents many categories included in QoL scales and some indicator questions, though it is not exhaustive, as the scale allows flexibility to include indicators relevant to the theoretical framework of the specific study. Given the general yet somewhat vague understanding of “QoL” among the American populace, some studies incorporate questions about respondents’ perceptions of their own QoL. Many of the indicators used to measure QoL—particularly those related to social relationships, community involvement, and location—overlap substantially with common measures of community attachment and community satisfaction. For instance, questions about sense of belonging, access to social capital, or satisfaction with one’s physical environment are often found in QoL scales as well as in studies of the attachment and satisfaction.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The concepts of community attachment, community satisfaction, and QoL are essential for sociologists and social scientists in understanding individuals and their communities. A major challenge in using these concepts within sociology is the lack of consistent definitions and frameworks. Many studies employ these terms without clearly defining or distinguishing them, resulting in theoretical confusion and difficulties in comparing findings. However, a strong foundational understanding remains valuable as scholars explore the human experiences these concepts represent, particularly across different disciplines. Although confusion persists in sociology, as Hummon noted, “theoretical complexity is inevitable” [32], pg.253 due to the nuanced and multifaceted nature of emotional and subjective experiences with community. Additionally, the interdisciplinary nature of the literature adds further complexity, as different fields study and measure similar concepts using distinct approaches.

As previously noted, some confusion exists between these terms due to their overlap and similarities. For example, in a study by Cope et al. [49], the questions used to measure community attachment captures community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life. When these terms are conflated and combined, gaps remain in our understanding of community experiences and perceptions. Understanding the overlap between community attachment, satisfaction, and QoL is crucial, as measurement entanglement between the concepts may undermine the validity and contributions of research.

All three concepts describe aspects of an individual’s connection to their community but do so in distinct ways. Community attachment is primarily affective and behavioral, reflecting the emotional ties individuals form with their communities and the extent to which they feel rooted in their local environment. Community satisfaction is an evaluative concept that assesses how well individuals believe their community meets their needs. QoL, often the broadest of the three, includes both objective and subjective measures of individual well-being, incorporating factors such as community involvement and belonging. These concepts are highly interrelated, with QoL functioning both as an outcome of and a contributing factor to community attachment and satisfaction.

In some research, QoL is treated as an outcome of strong community ties—emotional (attachment) and evaluative (satisfaction)—that influence perceptions of personal well-being [37,146,147]. In other cases, QoL is framed as a broader conceptual and operational category that includes community attachment and satisfaction among its key indicators. For example, QoL measurement frameworks such as CASP-19 and others frequently incorporate questions regarding community belonging, satisfaction with social environments, and perceived local support—all of which overlap with traditional measures of attachment and satisfaction. This dual function reflects both the interdisciplinary richness and the conceptual ambiguity documented by Schussler and Fisher [140] and Ferriss [141], underscoring the importance of clarifying whether QoL is being used as a dependent construct or an umbrella concept.

Although community attachment and community satisfaction are often treated in the literature as community-level constructs and QoL as individual-level, this review emphasizes that all three reflect individual-level experiences. Recognizing these concepts as rooted in individual experience also helps clarify their appropriate operationalization, avoiding conflation with community-level constructs. Definitions and measures of each of these terms focus on an individual’s evaluations, attitudes, and experiences of community. For example, community attachment is measured through personal attitudes, community satisfaction is measured through personal evaluations, and QoL measures individual well-being. Considering community attachment and satisfaction as community-level and QoL as individual-level poses greater risk of conflating these three concepts. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual relationships among the three terms, highlighting both their interrelatedness and shared individual-level focus. This framework aims to clarify how these community concepts, though sometimes framed collectively, are often studied through individual-level experience and assessment.

Despite their similarities, these concepts differ in key ways. While community attachment and satisfaction emphasize community-level dynamics, QoL is more commonly framed in individual terms. The three concepts also vary in how they are measured. Community attachment is typically assessed through affective and behavioral indicators, such as length of residence, social integration, and perceived belonging. Community satisfaction is often evaluated using questions that measure individuals’ perceptions of local services, infrastructure, and social dynamics. QoL incorporates both subjective self-assessments and objective measures of an individual’s life and community.

Table 4. Comparison of community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL).

Concept	Core Domain	Common Measures or Questions	Role in Relation to Other Concepts
Community Attachment	Affective and behavioral connection	Sense of belonging, emotional rootedness, anticipated support, regret at leaving, feeling “at home”	Foundational contributor to QoL
Community Satisfaction	Evaluative and judgment-based	Pride in community, comparison to an ideal community, desire to stay or leave, satisfaction with services and governance	Evaluative contributor to QoL
Quality of life (QoL)	Subjective and objective well-being	Self-rated health, economic security, social relationships, education, life satisfaction, access to resources	Umbrella concept encompassing attachment and satisfaction

Conceptual distinctions and relationships between community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL). While all three relate to how individuals experience and evaluate their communities, they differ in their core domain, unit of analysis, and typical operationalizations. QoL serves both as an outcome of community-based experiences and a broader conceptual framework that may include attachment and satisfaction as components.

outlines key differences between community attachment, community satisfaction, and QoL.

Although this review focuses on three widely used concepts—community attachment, community satisfaction, and quality of life—we believe the clarifications and distinctions outlined here may also be helpful to scholars working with related constructs such as sense of community, neighborhood sentiment, or place identity. These and other related terms share similar conceptual challenges, and a clearer understanding of definitional boundaries may enhance theoretical precision across community-focused research. We acknowledge, however, that this paper is limited by the decision not to conduct a fully systematic review, meaning that not all literature related to these concepts was analyzed or included, and some nuances of the terms may not have been fully captured or conveyed. Furthermore, our review explored only three terms, though there are various other community-related terms that we could have explored, such as “sense of community” or “community sentiments.” For the purposes of this paper, we focused only on these three, which are often associated with one another. Additionally, our reliance on sources available online may have excluded literature that is not easily accessible through the internet.

Despite these limitations, this paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, our review of each of the selected three terms allows for clarified understanding of community attachment, community satisfaction, and QoL. To reiterate, we do not advocate for a single definition or measurement approach for any of these terms but instead seek to present various perspectives for considering them. Our goal was not to determine the “best” conceptualization but to review and clarify the different ways scholars have defined, used, and measured these concepts. Second, we advance scholarly understanding of the distinctiveness and overlap between the three concepts. As discussed, despite conflation and subsumption, there are meaningful differences between how these terms are defined, operationalized, and measured. Finally, by offering information and insights about the similarities and distinctions between community attachment, community satisfaction, and QoL, we anticipate that this article can serve as a tool and resource for those who are interested or involved in community literature.

Given the complexity of the terms and measurement of community, as community scholars we have a responsibility to more deeply engage with the measures and theory that we draw on. This review highlights the need to clarify and rigorously assess our community measures. Greater clarity and engagement allow for improved collaboration and deeper academic discussions, enhancing our understanding of the real-life impacts these concepts capture on individuals and societies. We encourage continued discourse on these and related concepts to advance theory, methodology, discussions, and contributions to the societies we study. Further work is needed to examine and clarify related community terms—such as “sense of community”—where individual- and community-level phenomena are likely to be conflated. Additionally, contributions from empirical studies may also provide greater understanding and methodological rigor. By persistently exploring and critically engaging with the evolving dimensions of community, researchers not only drive scholarly dialogue forward, but also advance methodological clarity and strengthen both the theoretical foundations and practical implications of community research.