In the evolving discourse on urban sociology, the concept of belonging to one’s neighborhood has garnered increasing scholarly attention, particularly in metropolitan contexts. However, new empirical research takes a critical stride beyond this narrow focus, shedding light on how a sense of belonging manifests in smaller cities and non-metropolitan spaces. This exploration adds nuance to our understanding of social infrastructure’s role within these localities, challenging prevailing assumptions grounded primarily in metropolitan-centric studies. The findings suggest that while certain mechanisms of belonging remain consistent, the significance of social infrastructure itself may be more complex and context-dependent than previously thought.
Central to this inquiry is the role of housing as a key determinant of neighborhood belonging. Across various statistical models, housing status consistently emerges as a powerful predictor, affirming its foundational role in fostering a sense of security and attachment. This aligns with broader sociological theories positing home ownership and stable residence as integral to place-based identity. By contrast, the mere frequency of engaging with social infrastructure—such as parks, markets, or community centers—does not uniformly translate into heightened belonging, a finding that upends some expectations derived from earlier studies emphasizing public spaces as social catalysts.
Delving into the subjective dimension, satisfaction with existing local social infrastructure does exhibit a positive, albeit modest, influence on neighborhood belonging. This indicates that while objective access to infrastructures might not suffice, individual perceptions and experiences related to these facilities bear relevance. Such nuances highlight the importance of considering both quantitative accessibility and qualitative appraisal when evaluating how environments foster communal ties. Interestingly, broader structural characteristics of social infrastructure—measured objectively—show little to no bearing on belonging in multi-level statistical frameworks, signaling the limitations of equating infrastructure presence with social cohesion.
The research further contrasts urban typologies by demonstrating that residents of rural villages report a markedly stronger sense of belonging compared to their urban counterparts. This rural-urban divergence underlines the heterogeneous nature of belonging across spatial scales and invites reconsideration of blanket policies aimed at enhancing social cohesion. Smaller cities and villages possess distinct social dynamics that may emphasize interpersonal trust and neighborly interactions more than infrastructural assets. The result contradicts metropolitan-centric studies where elective belonging and symbolic capital often dominate belonging narratives.
Another critical gap addressed by the study is the overrepresentation of metropolitan contexts in belonging research. By incorporating data from non-metropolitan cities and areas beyond metropolitan cores in Germany, the study mitigates inherent urban biases and fills an empirical void identified in previous literature. Traditional metropolitan-oriented themes such as elective belonging, cosmopolitanism, and symbolic capital, while relevant in dense and socially competitive environments, carry less weight in smaller cities where trust and direct neighborly contact assume primacy. This realignment underscores the need to recalibrate belonging theories according to spatial context.
Exploring the influence of neighbors unveils a socio-philosophical facet that transcends surface-level interactions. Drawing on Heideggerian understandings, neighbors embody a dialectic of closeness and distance, blending familiarity with strangeness. The research empirically confirms that trust and regular contact within immediate residential vicinities constitute some of the most potent predictors of belonging. This relational dynamic functions as a mutual relay, where reciprocal recognition and communication weave the social fabric that defines neighborhood affinity.
In assessing the role of social infrastructures from a spatial and social perspective, the research applies conceptual frameworks articulated by scholars such as Latham and Layton, and Klinenberg. Despite expectations, the physical presence and objective characteristics of social infrastructures in German neighborhoods contribute minimally to belonging in multi-level models. This contrasts sharply with findings from comparable studies in the Global South, like those in Akure, Nigeria, where physical neighborhood appearance significantly modulates residents’ sense of belonging. The difference highlights divergent socio-spatial mechanisms and perhaps differing cultural valuations of public space.
Qualitative studies from various Global North locations provide further contrast. For instance, in Paradise, California, revitalized public spaces are identified as critical loci for facilitating social connection and belonging. Similarly, in Manchester, UK, the renewal of public places acts as social hinges, fostering community ties. New Zealand’s example emphasizes schools as social anchors that cultivate belonging. The German data confirms a subset of this influence, showing that individual satisfaction with such infrastructures positively correlates with belonging, even if their mere existence does not. This nuance highlights the subjective interplay of social infrastructure as both a material and symbolic resource.
Beyond the quantitative findings, qualitative insights illuminate informal social dynamics governing infrastructure use. Weekly markets in suburban Melbourne illustrate how humor, laughter, and minimal sympathy contribute to dismantling ethnic boundaries within social infrastructure settings. Such informal rules and user-driven norms appear pivotal in leveraging social infrastructure to foster belonging, possibly eclipsing the significance of structural availability. These micro-social factors present challenges for quantitative models which may fail to capture the subtleties of social interaction and shared meaning that emerge in everyday use.
The dual potential of social infrastructures to either enable or inhibit belonging is another significant observation. Where spaces promote trust and positive encounters, they bolster affective ties to place. Conversely, if such places evoke fear or discomfort, they become barriers to emotional attachment and identification. This ambivalence calls for nuanced policy approaches that prioritize not only infrastructure provision but also the social atmospherics and governance shaping community interactions.
At the philosophical core, a sense of belonging is deeply anchored in the local—the everyday neighborhood space one inhabits without deliberate choice. This rootedness is foundational for appreciating others within the community and serves as a cornerstone for ecological morality as outlined by Tomaney. The prominence of trust and conversational exchange in the empirical analyses reflects this fundamental social configuration, wherein belonging reconciles human needs for security and individual freedom, crafting a dynamic balance rather than a static identity.
Importantly, community and belonging do not always coincide, as evidenced in stigmatized social housing contexts where residents may share collective experiences but lack genuine belonging. Duration of residence exerts ambivalent effects, sometimes fostering identification, other times entrenching non-belonging linked to neighborhood decline or marginalization. This dialectic again challenges simplistic assumptions and invites more sensitive research designs attentive to social complexity in urban neighborhoods.
The study’s findings further reinforce that belonging in ordinary German neighborhoods hinges not on infrastructures alone but significantly on social trust and interpersonal contact. Homeownership and material security form important contextual components supporting attachment. The potential influence of informal social rules governing infrastructure use merits further investigation, an open question acknowledged by the researchers. Social infrastructures essentially operate as one among multiple mechanisms shaping belonging, with trust-building processes often residing at the core of these dynamics.
Ultimately, this research provides compelling evidence that the social fabric of neighborhoods beyond metropolitan centers is woven predominantly through relational trust and everyday interactions more than infrastructural presence. It challenges extant metropolitan-centric paradigms and enriches theoretical frameworks by emphasizing local social processes. These insights have profound implications for urban policy, suggesting that investments targeting social relations and community trust could yield more meaningful outcomes than focusing solely on infrastructure development.
In conclusion, this study not only fills a significant geographic and conceptual gap in belonging research but also reorients our understanding of how social infrastructure functions in different contexts. It calls for integrated perspectives that marry spatial, social, and subjective dimensions to capture the lived reality of neighborhood belonging. As urban landscapes continue to evolve, fostering genuine belonging will require recognizing the primacy of trust and neighborly encounters as foundational pillars within the mosaic of urban life.
Subject of Research: The sense of belonging to neighborhoods in non-metropolitan places, focusing on the role of social infrastructure and its influence on social cohesion in smaller cities and rural areas in Germany.
Article Title: A sense of belonging to the neighbourhood in places beyond the metropolis – the role of social infrastructure.
Article References:
Dirksmeier, P. A sense of belonging to the neighbourhood in places beyond the metropolis – the role of social infrastructure.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 774 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05115-0
Image Credits: AI Generated
