How active are community activities in Japan? A comprehensive analysis of participation frequency, motivation, and status of activities

Local communities have several desirable functions. Simultaneously, the weakening of community ties in Japan has made sustaining these functions a major challenge. To address this challenge, municipalities should encourage residents to participate in community activities and provide management support. To promote such measures appropriately, we require a comprehensive understanding of the extent to which people participate in each activity and how they perceive them. Therefore, we conducted a survey of 454 Japanese participants, asking about 26 types of community activities (14 community-wide, seven around the home, and five among neighbors). For each activity, the participants were asked about their participation frequency and motivation to engage. In addition, regarding community-wide activities, we asked about their implementation status. The results revealed that for almost all activities, both participation frequency and motivation were substantially below the midpoint of the scale. Cluster analysis of participation frequency and motivation identified four clusters: “both moderate,” “both slightly low,” “both low,” and “both very low.” Most community-wide activities fell into the “both very low” cluster. Therefore, to revitalize local communities, it may be more effective to encourage participation in activities around the home or among neighbors before promoting community-wide activities. Our findings offer guidance to municipalities for determining which community activities should be promoted.

Local communities perform several desirable functions. For example, they have been reported to help prevent social isolation in middle-aged and older adults (Giebel et al., 2022; Yamazaki et al., 2008). Participation in local communities also contributes to better health outcomes (Bhuan, 2004; Haldane et al., 2019; Lyons et al., 2016). However, in Japan, in recent years, community ties have markedly weakened due to a shortage of participants resulting from population aging and decline as well as restrictions on activities during the COVID-19 pandemic (Inagaki, 2021; Ogino, 2020). Indeed, a large-scale survey in Japan found that many younger people have few close interactions with neighbors and little desire for them (Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2023). This weakening of ties has also reduced disaster-prevention capacity in many areas (Iwahara et al., 2020). In response to such circumstances, it has been pointed out that “whether through direct or indirect means, if communities do not tackle social challenges through mutual aid, it may sometimes lead to threats to life itself” (Inagaki, 2021, p. 140). Therefore, maintaining community function is a major challenge in Japan.

To address this issue, municipalities must encourage residents to participate in local community activities (hereafter referred to as community activities) and provide support for their management. However, the financial and human resources available for these efforts are limited. Therefore, we should understand participation levels and perceptions in detail to determine which activities should be promoted and prioritized. However, in practice, such policy decisions must inevitably be tailored to the characteristics of each community. As part of this consideration, municipalities may also draw on examples from other municipalities with similar demographic structures, or adapt approaches commonly implemented across Japan to their own local contexts. Social capital has been widely discussed as a key mechanism linking community participation to health and wellbeing, and recent umbrella reviews have documented robust associations between various forms of social capital and health outcomes (Ehsan et al., 2019). Thus, gaining broad insights into how residents across Japan perceive and engage in community activities is important. Accordingly, we conducted a survey to examine residents' participation frequency and motivation for a variety of activities.

A wide range of community activities and issues in previous studies

So far, community activities have been treated as a single category; however, in practice, they take diverse forms. Examples include typical neighborhood association activities organized at the community level, beautification activities that can easily be carried out around one's home, and everyday interactions with neighbors. Recent work on local community engagement has emphasized that community participation comprises multiple dimensions, such as local volunteering, participation in traditions, political engagement, and community care (Talò, 2024). These findings suggest that individuals' community involvement cannot be adequately captured by a single, undifferentiated indicator of “participation.” Instead, different types of activities may vary in how they are embedded in daily life and may fulfill distinct social functions.

Several studies have examined the extent to which such activities are conducted in Japan. For instance, a large-scale two-wave survey of diverse age groups in the urban areas of Tokyo (Kanazawa and Koyama, 2024) reported that participation rates in four types (activities of neighborhood associations or residents' associations, NPOs and civic groups, sports clubs or teams, and cultural or hobby circles) declined by approximately half between 2009 and 2021. In the same survey, only about 35% of participants in 2021 responded “I would like to participate actively” or “I would like to participate” when asked about their motivation to engage in community activities (Kanazawa and Koyama, 2024)1.

A survey of neighborhood association representatives in urban Kanagawa Prefecture in Japan (Okanishi and Sadohara, 2006) classified community activities into four categories: events aimed at promoting social bonds (e.g., festivals, sports days), events aimed at promoting intergenerational interaction (e.g., events for older adults or children), foundational community functions (e.g., bulletin board management, newsletter publication), and problem-solving activities such as fire prevention and crime prevention efforts. Respondents reported the implementation status of activities, showing approximately 45 percent prevalence of events aimed at promoting social bonds and approximately 65 percent for the other three types (Okanishi and Sadohara, 2006).

A survey of residents across multiple generations in rural Hokkaido in Japan (Tsukui, 2012) examined everyday interactions with neighbors by asking about five types of activities: lending or borrowing items or sharing food with neighbors, engaging in small talk with neighbors when meeting on the street, helping each other in case of an emergency, greeting neighbors when passing by, and visiting each other's homes with neighbors. The results showed that over 90 percent reported greetings, about 60 percent reported lending/sharing and small talk, and about 40 percent reported the remaining two activities (Tsukui, 2012).

Although previous studies provided valuable insights, two important issues remain. First, many studies have not examined people's motivation to participate. In practice, some individuals participate in community activities voluntarily and enthusiastically, whereas others do so reluctantly. Therefore, assessing the motivation for each specific activity would help identify those in which motivation tends to be low. Based on these findings, municipalities can provide targeted support, reduce residents' burdens, promote social participation, and enhance their wellbeing (Murayama et al., 2013; Qing et al., 2024). However, Kanazawa and Koyama (2024) included only a single item on general motivation, which did not capture the differences across activities. To address this gap, the present study investigated both participation frequency and motivation for each activity.

Second, previous studies have not comprehensively or in detail examined community activities. Most have investigated fewer than 10 activities, often grouping them into broad categories or focusing only on neighbor-based activities. Recent large-scale longitudinal research in Japan has shown that community-level social capital, including civic participation, is associated with several domains of older adults' health and wellbeing (Takeda et al., 2024). While these studies focused on community-level indicators of participation, little is known about how residents perceive and engage in specific everyday activities that constitute such participation in practice. To comprehensively examine community activities, we focused on 26 distinct activities, providing valuable data for future research and municipalities seeking to promote engagement. The selection process and details of the 26 activities are described in Section 2.2 Selection of Community Activities.

The purpose of this study

This study aimed to examine the extent to which people participate in various community activities and how they perceive each activity. Specifically, we asked about participation frequency and motivation for 14 activities conducted at the community-wide level, seven activities around the home, and five activities among neighbors. For community-wide activities, we also assessed whether each activity existed in the participants' residential areas (i.e., the status of activities) to clarify their prevalence. Japan faced pressing challenges in maintaining local communities, such as rapid population aging and the depopulation of regional cities, earlier than many other countries. Therefore, our findings are expected to provide valuable insights not only in Japan but also in a wide range of countries confronting similar issues in the future.

In addition to its practical relevance for municipalities, this study offers theoretical insights into community participation. By examining 26 distinct activities across different spatial scales and considering both participation frequency and motivation, we move beyond approaches that treat community participation as a single, homogeneous construct. Our findings clarify how different types of activities are embedded in everyday life, how participation and willingness may diverge, and how low-threshold neighbor- and home-based activities can function as gateways to broader community involvement and local resilience.

Participants

The survey was conducted online and participants were recruited through Lancers, a major crowdsourcing service in Japan. Although participants were recruited through an online crowdsourcing platform and thus did not constitute a probabilistic sample, the survey reached individuals across Japan and included adults from a wide age range and diverse residential contexts. Crowdsourcing-based recruitment is an established practice in psychological research in Japan and is widely used to obtain diverse samples efficiently. Therefore, the present sample should be interpreted as providing diverse perspectives from residents across Japan, rather than a strictly representative snapshot of the population.

A total of 454 individuals participated in the study (287 men and 167 women), with a mean age of 48.02 years (range: 24–83 years, SD = 11.39). Seven participants were excluded from the analyses due to satisficing behavior, as evidenced by their failure on a trap item (“Please choose the second option from the right, “agree,” for this question”) in the survey, which suggested that they were not carefully reading the questions. In addition, 65 participants were excluded because of inconsistent responses: although they answered, “Does not exist” or “Unsure whether it exists” regarding the prevalence of a community-wide activity in their area, they simultaneously reported engaging in the activity at a frequency of “Somewhat often,” “Often,” or “Very often.” Five participants met both the exclusion criteria. After screening, we analyzed the data of 387 participants (249 men and 138 women) with a mean age of 46.98 years (range: 24–78 years, SD = 10.77).

Selection of community activities

To comprehensively examine the community activities conducted in Japan, the research team, consisting of researchers in urban planning and psychology, identified 26 activities (Table 1) to be included in this study by reviewing previous Japanese research. When selecting these activities, care was taken to ensure that they covered activities conducted at the community-wide level, around the home, and among neighbors.

Four types of community-wide activities were identified by Kanazawa and Koyama (2024): neighborhood associations or residents' associations, NPOs or civic groups, sports clubs or teams, and cultural or hobby circles (Table 1, Activities 1–4). In addition, three types drawn from Okanishi and Sadohara (2006) were included: events aimed at promoting social bonds (e.g., festivals and sports days), events aimed at promoting intergenerational interaction (e.g., events for older adults or children), and foundational community functions (e.g., bulletin board management and newsletter publications) (Table 1, Activities 5–7). Furthermore, the category of problem-solving activities in Okanishi and Sadohara (2006), which included activities such as fire and crime prevention, was subdivided into seven distinct categories (Table 1, Activities 8–14). This resulted in 14 community-wide activities.

Activities conducted around one's home consisted of seven items created in correspondence with community-wide problem-solving activities (Table 1, Activities 8–14), such as fire prevention activities around one's home (Okanishi and Sadohara, 2006). These were classified as Activities 15–21 (Table 1).

Activities conducted among neighbors included five items, such as lending and borrowing items or sharing food with neighbors (Table 1, Activities 22–26; Tsukui, 2012).

Questionnaire items

For the participation frequency of activities, participants were asked, “How often do you engage in the following activities?” for each of 26 activities. The options were as follows: (1) not at all, (2) rarely, (3) somewhat rarely, (4) somewhat often, (5) often, and (6) very often. For motivation, participants were asked, “How much would you like to engage in the following activities?” for each of 26 activities. The options were (1) not at all, (2) unwilling, (3) somewhat unwilling, (4) somewhat willing, (5) willing, and (6) very willing. The response options were aligned in a comparable format to enable comparisons between participation frequency and motivation scores. The results of the factor analyses conducted on participation frequency and motivation for the 26 activities are presented in Appendix A of the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository (https://osf.io/z23km/). As the model fit indices were not sufficiently high, we did not group the activities into subcategories based on factor analysis. Instead, this study focuses on individual activities.

The 14 community-wide activities (Table 1, Activities 1–14) may not have existed in the residential areas of some participants. Therefore, we asked about the status of these activities with the question, “Do the following activities exist in your community?” The options were (1) does not exist, (2) unsure whether it exists, and (3) exists. For remaining activities (around the home/among neighbors), the status of activities was not measured because, by definition, such activities cannot be “non-existent” unless one lives in a location completely without neighboring households.

Participants were asked about their age and sex as demographic variables. The analyses of their associations with participation frequency and motivation are presented in the OSF (Appendix B). In addition, we explored the population density in the participants' residential areas and years of residence. A brief review of previous studies on these variables and analyses of their associations with participation frequency and motivation is provided in the OSF (Appendix C).

Participation frequency and motivation were measured using single items for each of the 26 activities. This approach reflects our focus on concrete, behavior-specific constructs, such as “Activities of neighborhood associations or residents' associations” or “Greeting neighbors when passing by” rather than on broad latent traits. Previous research suggests that single-item measures can achieve acceptable levels of reliability and validity when the target construct is clearly defined and concrete (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007; Bergkvist, 2015). In line with this literature, we treat single items as direct indicators of each specific activity. However, we acknowledge that using single-item measures introduces certain limitations, which we discuss further in Section 4.3, Limitations and Future Directions.

Analysis

We first compared the mean values of participation frequency and motivation for each activity. Next, we conducted a cluster analysis of participation frequency and motivation across 26 activities. For the 14 community-wide activities, we performed a supplementary cluster analysis that included the status of activities, participation frequency, and motivation. To code the status of activities, the responses (1) Does not exist and (2) Unsure whether it exists were coded as 0, and (3) Exists were coded as 1. To adjust for multiple statistical tests, we applied a Bonferroni correction and set the significance threshold at α = 0.05/26 ≈ 0.0019. All analyses were conducted using the R software (version 4.2.0). The dataset and analysis codes are available in the OSF.

Participation frequency, motivation, and status of activities

Table 1 presents the mean values of participation frequency and motivation for 26 activities. For almost all activities, both participation frequency and motivation were substantially below the midpoint of 3.5 (see Appendix E in the OSF). Considering the potential for floor effects, we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare the mean values of participation frequency and motivation for each activity. The results showed that, except for Activity 1 (Activities of neighborhood associations or residents' associations) and Activity 25 (Greeting neighbors when passing by), motivation was significantly higher than participation frequency (p s < 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was observed between the two variables for Activity 1 (p = 0.07), whereas for Activity 25, participation frequency was higher than motivation frequency (p < 0.001). The results of the analyses in which participation frequency and motivation were averaged across activities conducted at the community-wide level, around the home, and among neighbors are presented in Appendix F of the OSF.

For the 14 community-wide activities, Table 1 presents the proportion of participants who responded that the activity “exists” in their residential area. The results showed that Activity 1 (Activities of neighborhood associations or residents' associations) and Activity 5 (Events aimed at promoting social bonds [e.g., festivals, sports days]) were endorsed by over 50 percent of the participants, whereas the remaining 12 activities were reported by approximately 50 percent or less.

Cluster analysis of community activities

This study aimed not only to compare mean levels of participation frequency and motivation but also to examine whether the 26 activities form distinguishable profiles based on how residents experience and evaluate them. As the descriptive statistics indicated substantial variability across activities, a classification-based approach was appropriate for uncovering the underlying structure. Therefore, we conducted a cluster analysis using standardized participation frequency and motivation scores, which enabled us to identify empirical profiles that would not have been detectable through variable-centered analyses alone.

Therefore, we conducted a cluster analysis of participation frequency and motivation for the 26 activities. To determine the optimal number of clusters, we used the D index computed using the NbClust package in R (Charrad et al., 2014). The results show a clear peak at the four clusters in the D index second-difference plot (see Appendix G on the OSF), indicating that four was the optimal solution. Accordingly, after standardizing participation frequency and motivation, we performed a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method with Euclidean distance, which classified the activities into four clusters. We found four clusters characterized by participation frequency and motivation: (1) moderate, (2) slightly low, (3) low, and (4) very low (Figure 1). The mean values of the two variables for each cluster are presented in Table 2.

For each participant, the mean scores for participation frequency and motivation were calculated for the activities within each cluster. A two-way within-participants analysis of variance (ANOVA) was then conducted with indicator type (participation frequency, motivation) and cluster (1, 2, 3, 4) as independent variables, using a nonparametric approach with the Aligned Rank Transform. The ANOVA results revealed a significant interaction between indicator type and cluster (p < 0.001). Multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method showed that in Cluster 1, participation frequency was higher than motivation (p < 0.001), whereas in Clusters 2, 3, and 4, motivation was higher than participation frequency (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). In addition, Cluster 1 showed higher scores than the other three clusters for both participation frequency and motivation (p s < 0.001). In contrast, no significant differences in the two variables were observed among Clusters 2, 3, and 4 (p s > 0.23).

Cluster 1 consisted solely of Activity 25 (Greeting neighbors when passing by). Cluster 2 comprised Activities 18, 19, 23, and 24, which mainly involved activities that could be easily carried out around the home or with neighbors. For these four activities, the Spearman correlation coefficient between participation frequency and motivation was r = −0.80 (p = 0.33)2. Cluster 3 consisted of Activities 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22, which mainly included community-wide beautification and recycling activities, as well as disaster prevention activities conducted around the home. For these eight activities, the correlation between participation frequency and motivation was r = 0.04 (p = 0.93). Cluster 4 comprised the remaining 13 activities, which were primarily conducted at a community-wide level. For these 13 activities, the correlation between participation frequency and motivation was r = 0.15 (p = 0.62).

In addition, we conducted a cluster analysis of 14 community-wide activities that incorporated the status of the activities, participation frequency, and motivation. The number of clusters was determined using the D-index, which indicated that four clusters were optimal. Accordingly, standardized scores for the status of activities, participation frequency, and motivation were subjected to a hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's method with Euclidean distance, resulting in four clusters: (1) high prevalence/low frequency/low motivation, (2) low prevalence/low frequency/very low motivation, (3) low prevalence/low frequency/low motivation, and (4) moderate prevalence/low frequency/slightly low motivation. To visualize the cluster solution in two dimensions, principal component analysis was conducted (see Appendix D). The first principal component (horizontal axis in Figure 2) reflected overall low levels of frequency, prevalence, and motivation, whereas the second principal component (vertical axis in Figure 2) reflected higher motivation and lower prevalence. Together, these two components accounted for 93.63% of the total variance. The mean values of participation frequency, motivation, and prevalence for each of the four clusters of community-wide activities are presented in Appendix D.

We conducted an online survey of residents across Japan to examine their participation levels in 26 community activities and their perceptions. The results showed that, except for Activity 25 (Greeting neighbors when passing by), participation frequency was low, indicating that community activities were not actively practiced. This likely reflects the current situation in Japan, where community ties have weakened because of population aging, population decline, and restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic (Inagaki, 2021; Ogino, 2020). In contrast, Activity 25 had a higher participation frequency because it might have been easier to perform and occur in everyday situations.

In 24 of the 26 activities, motivation scores exceeded participation frequency, whereas in Activity 25 (Greeting neighbors when passing by), motivation was lower. This suggests that people may wish to reduce greetings with neighbors. Although motivation scores were generally higher than participation frequency, they remained low for many activities, indicating a broadly negative attitude toward community participation, with many preferring “not to engage if possible.” This aligns with Kanazawa and Koyama (2024), who found that only approximately 35% of participants expressed motivation to participate actively in community activities. As such activities in Japan are largely volunteer-based, concerns about their burden likely contribute to low levels of motivation.

We conducted supplementary analyses of residential population density, years of residence, age, and sex; the results are provided in Appendices B and C of the OSF. In particular, older age was associated with greater participation frequency and motivation, especially for activities among neighbors. This is consistent with the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2023), who reported that many younger people have few close interactions with neighbors or little desire for them. The findings of this study on residential population density, years of residence, age, and sex provide valuable reference material for municipalities seeking to promote the development of local communities.

In this study, the proportion of participants who reported that the community-wide activities “exist” in their area was about 50 percent or lower for all activities except Activity 1 (Activities of neighborhood associations or residents' associations) and Activity 5 [ Events aimed at promoting social bonds (e.g., festivals, sports days) ]. This suggests that many activities do not exist or are not widely recognized by the residents. Prior research found that approximately 65 percent of neighborhood associations implemented activities such as senior gatherings, newsletter publications, and fire prevention (Okanishi and Sadohara, 2006). Although this proportion is higher than that in the present study, the discrepancy may reflect different samples, namely, public vs. association representatives. These findings imply that, even when activities are implemented, they may not be widely recognized. While the absence of low-necessity activities is not problematic, the lack of or limited recognition of essential activities represents a serious loss. Therefore, municipalities should assess the status of activities, support the introduction of those that are lacking, and raise awareness of existing activities.

Practical implications from cluster analysis results

In this study, cluster analysis of 26 activities based on participation frequency and motivation revealed four clusters: moderate, slightly low, low, and very low. However, the ANOVA results indicated that although significant differences in participation frequency and motivation were observed between Cluster 1 and the other clusters, they were not observed among Clusters 2, 3, and 4. Thus, it would also be possible to treat Clusters 2, 3, and 4 collectively as a single “low” cluster. However, as the aim of this study was to understand the extent to which people participate in diverse community activities and how they perceive them, we did not aggregate the three clusters. Therefore, we conduct a discussion based on a four-cluster solution.

Among the 14 community-wide activities examined in this study, all except Activity 11 (Community-wide recycling activities) and Activity 12 (Community-wide beautification activities) were classified into the “very low” cluster for both participation frequency and motivation. This indicates that, compared to activities around the home or among neighbors, fewer people engage in community-wide activities and express less motivation. In contrast, among the activities conducted around the home or with neighbors, only Activity 26 (Visiting each other's homes with neighbors) was classified into the “very low” cluster. This suggests that relative to community-wide activities, activities around the home or among neighbors are comparatively easier to carry out. Therefore, to revitalize local communities, it may be more effective to encourage participation in activities around the home or among neighbors before promoting community-wide activities. Moreover, previous research has pointed out that everyday neighbor interactions support disaster responses and prevent social isolation among older adults (Kawata, 1997; Yamazaki et al., 2008). Thus, municipalities should foster not only community-wide activities, but also those around the home and among neighbors.

Among the community activities examined in this study, four were closely related to disaster prevention: Activity 8 (Community-wide fire prevention activities), Activity 9 (Community-wide disaster preparedness activities), Activity 15 (Fire prevention activities around one's home), and Activity 16 (Disaster preparedness activities around one's home). These activities were classified as either “very low” or “low” in terms of participation frequency and motivation. Consistent with prior research showing that weakened community ties reduce disaster prevention capacity (Iwahara et al., 2020), our findings underscore Japan's vulnerability to disaster preparedness. Notably, Activities 15 and 16 (around the home) had a higher participation frequency and motivation than Activities 8 and 9 (community-wide). Therefore, if municipalities aim to foster participation in community-wide activities, it may be effective to encourage residents to engage in activities at home.

Many studies have shown that community activities support people's lives through disaster prevention and mutual aid. However, this cannot be judged simply as “the more participants, the better.” For example, with advances in digital technology, systems may allow efficient management with fewer residents. Thus, key questions remain regarding the appropriate level of commitment and who determines it. From the perspective of policymaking, it may, therefore, be necessary not to set the increase in the number of participants as a unique end, but rather to acknowledge the generally low motivation to participate and design flexible measures that reflect diverse attitudes and lifestyles.

Although this study focused on community activities in Japan, the findings are relevant to countries facing similar issues, such as population aging, urbanization, and declining neighborhood ties. Cross-cultural research has shown that societies differ in how people view community obligations and collective action; however, even in traditionally collectivistic contexts, local connectedness has weakened in recent years (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2017). Our results suggest that policymakers should not treat “community participation” as a single, uniform target, but instead consider differences in scale, required effort, and everyday embeddedness. In particular, the relative ease of activities around the home and among neighbors indicates that low-threshold, neighbor-based activities may serve as practical entry points for broader involvement and community resilience, which is consistent with recent findings on the role of social capital in disaster contexts (Chen et al., 2024). Moreover, the generally low motivation to participate suggests that simply increasing the available activities may be insufficient. Countries with similar sociocultural contexts may therefore benefit from strategies that lower perceived burden, align activities with everyday life, and enhance awareness of existing opportunities.

Theoretical implications

The findings also contribute to theoretical discussions on community participation and social capital. First, by demonstrating that community activities form distinct clusters based on participation frequency and motivation, our study challenges approaches that conceptualize “community participation” as a unitary dimension. Instead, our results align with perspectives emphasizing the multidimensional nature of civic and community engagement (Hustinx et al., 2010), suggesting that theoretical models should consider differences across activities in terms of scale, effort required, and the degree to which they are embedded in everyday life.

Second, the consistent pattern in which motivation scores remained low even when participation occurred indicates that participation may sometimes be maintained not only by intrinsic willingness but also by perceived obligation, social norms, and role expectations, as discussed in previous studies on role-based or reluctant participation (Musick and Wilson, 2008). This observation highlights the need for theoretical frameworks that incorporate both positive and negative drivers of participation rather than assuming that community engagement arises solely from intrinsic motivation.

Third, the finding that activities around the home and among neighbors tend to be relatively easier to carry out and more strongly connected to daily routines is consistent with theoretical perspectives that stress the importance of micro-level neighbor interactions for disaster resilience (Iwahara et al., 2020) and the prevention of social isolation (Giebel et al., 2022; Yamazaki et al., 2008). Taken together, these insights refine existing theories by clarifying when and how different types of community activities contribute to individual wellbeing and the functioning of local communities, as well as demonstrating the importance of distinguishing among diverse forms of everyday community engagement.

Limitations and future directions

This study had two major limitations. First, the participants' social desirability tendencies were not considered. Because expressing very negative attitudes toward community activities may be seen as socially undesirable, some participants may have overstated their motivations. Thus, future research should measure and control for social desirability tendencies. Notably, even if social desirability inflated the overall scores for Activities 1 and 25, the motivation was lower than (or comparable to) participation frequency. This suggests that people may wish to reduce their participation in these activities.

Second, some community activities overlapped with the content. For example, Activity 1 (Activities of neighborhood associations or residents' associations) may encompass more specific activities, such as Activity 8. The factor analysis of the three broad categories (community-wide, around the home, and among neighbors) did not show adequate model fit (see Appendix A on the OSF), possibly because of this overlap. However, because this study aimed to comprehensively cover a wide range of activities, some overlap was allowed. Future research should use a list of independent activities to classify their types better.

Third, we used single-item measures of participation frequency and motivation. Although these items targeted concrete, behavior-specific constructs and prior research has shown that single-item indicators of clearly defined constructs can be reliable and valid (Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007; Bergkvist, 2015), the use of single items may have introduced random measurement errors. Such errors may have reduced the estimated precision and attenuated the observed associations. Future research should develop and validate multi-item scales for broader constructs, such as general attitudes toward community participation and overall willingness to engage in local activities.