In the Dutch policy discourse it is increasingly thought that active citizenship will positively affect satisfaction with the living environment. This article challenges this assumption by examining whether and how volunteering in village life and individual perceptions of liveability are interrelated. Through a series of hierarchical regressions, we found that having the opportunity to volunteer in village life is not a significant predictor of perceived liveability. Moreover, by classifying rural inhabitants as nonparticipants, nominal participants and active participants in volunteering in village life, we determined that active residents evaluate liveability less positively than the other two groups. Accordingly, determinants other than volunteering and active citizenship are better able to predict perceived liveability, although the specific variables differ for each group of rural inhabitants. This suggests that governments overestimate both the willingness of rural residents to volunteer and the benefits of becoming active in village life.

Villages are often perceived as close-knit societies to which residents feel strongly attached. In the era of mobilities, rural residents have more opportunities to choose their own degree and form of village attachment. This challenges the distinction between locals and newcomers, which is frequently made, where the latter are considered to have only weak village attachment compared to the former. To assess contemporary types of village attachment, we employed a latent class analysis using survey data on 7684 residents of small villages and outlying areas in the Netherlands. Based on their degrees of social, functional, cultural and environmental attachment we categorised rural residents into seven groups according to their type of village attachment: traditionally attached, socially attached, rural idyll seekers, rest seekers, slightly attached, footloose and reluctantly attached. The results demonstrate meaningful variation in people-place relationships in Dutch villages. Moreover, they underscore that simple distinctions such as that between locals and newcomers do not suffice to describe this variation.

In the past century, the increasing scale of daily life has weakened and changed the ways residents feel attached to their village. A general and all-encompassing village attachment has evolved into less involving, more selective and partial forms of attachment. Concerns have been raised as to whether these changing forms affect volunteering in village life. In this paper we distinguish between general and selective forms of attachment to the village-social, cultural and environmental attachment-and explore their effects on local volunteering. In line with the theory of 's/elective belonging', we hypothesise that a general attachment to the village predicts high levels of volunteering in village life, whereas selective forms of attachment only predict volunteering in activities related to the specific form of attachment. Based on survey data on over 5000 rural residents, the results show that general attachment only predicts volunteering to a limited extent and that social attachment does so best. Thus, a loosening general attachment to the village may not weaken community activity as is often feared. Instead, it is social attachment that motivates and facilitates volunteering, including among inmigrants. Efforts to strengthen local communities should therefore focus on enhancing social relations between villagers.

Economies of scale and increased mobility have led to the closure of many village facilities. Most residents do not rely on locally available facilities anymore for their primary function. However, facilities are also meeting places. A decline in facilities may therefore negatively influence residents' social place attachment. This article examines which facilities impact residents' social place attachment. It also explores whether different facilities impact the social place attachment of different groups of residents differently. In our analyses, we make a distinction between rural areas near and away from urban areas. Based on structural equation modeling, we conclude that in rural areas, both near and away from cities, cafés and supermarkets may well matter for residents' social attachment. In contrast to common expectations, community centers, primary schools, and sports facilities were not shown to enhance social place attachment. Considering the increasing self‐reliance of local communities, these findings raise doubts about the use of public services to revitalize local communities.

In 2015, the local supermarket of the depopulating village of Ulrum closed its doors. After a first survey around the closure, a second survey was conducted two years later, to investigate changes in the different meanings of the local supermarket and the perceived effects of its closure over time. The results show that respondents state that the liveability and status of the village have decreased because of the loss of the supermarket. This strongly relates to the symbolic and village level meanings of the supermarket: A village 'needs' a supermarket for the villages' status and as a place to do groceries, and people feel that a village without a supermarket is a village without a heart. The article concludes by alleging that the symbolic meaning of facilities plays an important role in explaining the perceived effects of the loss of the local supermarket.