Exploring sense of belonging amongst youth

Overview of the research

This research makes use of knowledge from the Canadian Social Survey (2021 to 2024) to discover the experiences of youth (aged 15 to 29) and their sense of belonging to their neighborhood throughout the city and rural divide. Specifically, it describes the traits of youth who’re most certainly to expertise a “somewhat strong” or “very strong” sense of belonging to their local people. It additionally examines the connection between having a powerful sense of belonging and different indicators associated to social helps and well-being in each city and rural settings.

• Nearly two-thirds of youth aged 15 to 19 reported a powerful sense of belonging to their local people (63%), whereas lower than half of these aged 20 to 24 (47%) and 25 to 29 (43%) reported that they felt this manner.
• Rural youth have been extra prone to report a powerful sense of belonging to their local people (59%), in contrast with these dwelling in city centres (50%).
• A powerful sense of belonging is related to optimistic basic well being and psychological well being amongst youth—96% of these with a powerful sense of belonging additionally reported being in good bodily well being, and 86% reported optimistic psychological well being. By comparability, 87% of youth with a weaker sense of belonging reported being in good bodily well being, and 59% reported optimistic psychological well being.

Introduction

A powerful sense of belonging to a local people is a key signal of social connectedness, which performs an important function in a person’s total well being and high quality of life. Sense of belonging refers back to the feeling of being accepted and valued inside a social group, and it’s influenced by each the bodily and the social surroundings the place an individual lives.^{Note 1} It is especially related to discover sense of belonging amongst youth (aged 15 to 29) as a result of individuals on this age group usually expertise important transitions in life, comparable to altering their place of residence, college, office or social teams. Findings present that adolescents (aged 15 to 19) report a stronger sense of belonging, in contrast with younger adults (aged 20 to 29), suggesting age-related growth or contextual shifts throughout this era.

Statistics Canada has beforehand highlighted the connection between age group and sense of belonging, displaying that youthful individuals total (aged 15 to 34) are much less prone to report feeling a powerful sense of belonging,^{Note 2} with this sense usually rising as individuals age. As an extra consideration, the information recommend that residents of rural areas are likely to report a stronger sense of belonging, in contrast with these dwelling in city areas.^{Note 3} However, much less is understood about how geographic and contextual components work together to form the experiences of youth throughout rural versus city settings.

This paper addresses this hole by inspecting the traits of rural and concrete youth with a powerful sense of belonging, whereas additionally contemplating different related high quality of life indicators.

A better proportion of youthful youth report a powerful sense of belonging, in contrast with older youth

In basic, youth have been much less probably than older Canadians to report feeling a powerful sense of belonging to their neighborhood. From 2021 to 2024, simply over half (51%) of youth aged 15 to 29 reported a powerful sense of belonging to their local people. An analogous proportion (52%) of adults aged 30 to 59 reported a powerful sense of belonging, whereas two-thirds (66%) of adults aged 60 and older expressed a powerful sense of belonging. However, when teams have been additional damaged down by age, the same proportion of adolescents reported a powerful sense of belonging to their neighborhood as adults aged 60 years and older. Specifically, 63% of youth aged 15 to 19 reported a powerful sense of belonging to their local people, whereas this was reported by 47% of these aged 20 to 24 and 43% of these aged 25 to 29 (Chart 1).

Data desk for Chart 1

Data desk for Chart 1

Table abstract
The data is grouped by Age group (showing as row headers), Proportion, 95% confidence interval, Error interval, Lower restrict, Upper restrict, Minus and Plus, calculated utilizing p.c models of measure (showing as column headers).

Age group	Proportion	95% confidence interval		Error interval
		Lower restrict	Upper restrict	Minus	Plus
	p.c
Note: Error bars characterize the 95% confidence intervals. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Social Survey, 2021 to 2024.
15 to 19 years	63.1	60.9	65.2	2.2	2.2
20 to 24 years	46.8	44.6	49.0	2.2	2.2
25 to 29 years	42.5	40.7	44.4	1.9	1.9
30 to 34 years	46.4	44.8	48.0	1.6	1.6
35 to 39 years	50.1	48.6	51.6	1.5	1.5
40 to 44 years	53.5	52.0	54.9	1.4	1.4
45 to 49 years	55.1	53.7	56.6	1.4	1.4
50 to 54 years	54.6	53.2	56.0	1.4	1.4
55 to 59 years	56.9	55.6	58.3	1.3	1.3
60 to 64 years	61.1	59.9	62.2	1.2	1.2
65 years and older	67.2	66.5	67.9	0.7	0.7

Some analysis factors to the idea of “rootedness,” suggesting that period of residence is positively related to neighborhood belonging.^{Note 4} Youth aged 15 to 19 extra regularly dwell at dwelling and should really feel extra rooted locally the place they grew up and proceed to dwell. Conversely, many youth aged 20 to 29, who’re getting into early maturity, could have but to ascertain deep roots in a neighborhood as a result of they regularly expertise adjustments to their dwelling scenario or location and face pivotal selections about work, training and their private lives earlier than they’re settled of their grownup identification.^{Note 5}

Furthermore, different components comparable to participation in organized sports activities are identified to strengthen sense of belonging and positively affect different indicators of well-being comparable to belief in others and emotions of social inclusion,^{Note 6} which might differ all through the life course. Adolescents sometimes have higher entry to sports activities and different extracurriculars in class, offering alternatives for social bonding and neighborhood involvement. However, as soon as younger individuals transition to postsecondary life or the workforce, they’re much less probably to participate in actions like sports activities as a result of these built-in avenues for participation diminish.^{Note 7}

The proportion of youth reporting a powerful sense of belonging elevated modestly from 2021 to 2024, by a median of two.0 proportion factors per yr. When damaged down by smaller age group, youth aged 20 to 24 noticed the biggest beneficial properties in reporting a optimistic sense of belonging over the previous few years, with a rise of two.3 proportion factors per yr (Chart 2).

Data desk for Chart 2

Data desk for Chart 2

Table abstract
The data is grouped by Selected age teams (showing as row headers), Collection interval, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, Q3, This autumn, Q1, Q2, Q3, This autumn, Q1, Q2, Q3, This autumn, Q1, Q2, Q3 and This autumn, calculated utilizing p.c models of measure (showing as column headers).

Selected age teams	Collection interval
	2021		2022				2023				2024
	Q3	This autumn	Q1	Q2	Q3	This autumn	Q1	Q2	Q3	This autumn	Q1	Q2	Q3	This autumn
	p.c
Note .. not out there for a particular reference interval Note: Error bars characterize the 95% confidence intervals. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Social Survey, third quarter of 2021 to fourth quarter of 2024 (excluding first, third and fourth quarters of 2023).
15 to 19 years
Mean	60.6	72.0	65.6	55.7	61.4	58.7	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	59.7	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	57.3	59.8	67.5	74.4
Error interval (+/-)
Minus	6.6	7.2	7.6	7.9	7.4	9.6	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	8.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	5.3	6.6	5.7	6.2
Plus	6.6	7.2	7.6	7.9	7.4	9.6	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	8.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	5.3	6.6	5.7	6.2
95% confidence interval
Upper restrict	54.0	64.8	57.9	47.8	54.0	49.1	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	51.5	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	52.0	53.3	61.8	68.2
Lower restrict	67.2	79.2	73.2	63.5	68.8	68.3	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	67.9	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	62.6	66.4	73.2	80.6
20 to 24 years
Mean	40.0	41.5	47.9	43.5	49.2	50.1	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	46.4	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	43.6	44.5	52.3	54.1
Error interval (+/-)
Minus	6.6	7.2	8.0	7.0	7.5	9.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	8.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	6.2	7.1	7.0	7.5
Plus	6.6	7.2	8.0	7.0	7.5	9.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	8.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	6.2	7.1	7.0	7.5
95% confidence interval
Upper restrict	33.4	34.3	39.9	36.5	41.7	40.8	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	38.2	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	37.5	37.4	45.3	46.5
Lower restrict	46.6	48.7	55.9	50.5	56.7	59.3	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	54.6	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	49.8	51.6	59.3	61.6
25 to 29 years
Mean	45.3	37.2	37.8	43.6	44.2	37.6	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	42.5	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	41.9	40.4	46.5	49.7
Error interval (+/-)
Minus	5.9	5.8	5.8	6.1	6.4	6.8	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	6.8	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	5.5	6.1	6.4	6.5
Plus	5.9	5.8	5.8	6.1	6.4	6.8	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	6.8	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	5.5	6.1	6.4	6.5
95% confidence interval
Upper restrict	39.4	31.4	31.9	37.4	37.8	30.8	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	35.7	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	36.4	34.3	40.1	43.2
Lower restrict	51.2	43.0	43.6	49.7	50.6	44.4	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	49.3	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	.. not out there for a particular reference interval	47.4	46.4	52.9	56.2

2SLGBTQ+ youth and youth with a incapacity usually tend to report weaker neighborhood ties

Some youth face extra systemic boundaries or social challenges that will hinder their sense of belonging to their native communities. For instance, 2SLGBTQ+ youth have been much less prone to report a powerful sense of belonging than youth who weren’t 2SLGBTQ+ (35% versus 54%) (Table 1). For transgender or non-binary youth, just below one in 4 (23%) reported a powerful sense of belonging to their neighborhood, in contrast with simply over half of cisgender youth (52%). There was no distinction in sense of belonging between female and male cisgender youth.

Other teams who have been much less prone to report robust neighborhood ties included youth with a incapacity. Among youth with a incapacity, 36% reported a powerful sense of belonging, in contrast with 53% of youth with out a incapacity (Table 1).

Meanwhile, youth from racialized teams have been extra prone to report a powerful sense of belonging to their neighborhood (55%), in contrast with non-racialized, non-Indigenous youth (49%) (Table 1). In explicit, Arab (69%) and South Asian (64%) youth have been the most certainly to report a powerful sense of belonging, whereas Chinese (46%) and Southeast Asian (48%) youth have been among the many least probably.

Rural youth report stronger neighborhood ties than their city counterparts

Rural youth have been extra prone to report a powerful sense of belonging to their local people (59%), in contrast with these dwelling in city centres (50%). Modest will increase in sense of belonging over the previous few years have been seen for each city and rural youth (2.6 proportion factors per yr for rural youth and a pair of.0 proportion factors per yr for city youth). Despite the stronger sense of belonging reported by rural youth, some younger individuals are identified to go away rural areas for instructional and financial alternatives.^{Note 8}

Geographically, there have been no important variations in sense of belonging amongst youth throughout totally different Canadian areas (Table 1). However, some variations emerge when evaluating rural and concrete areas. For instance, rural youth within the Prairies have been among the many most certainly to report a powerful sense of belonging, at 63%—the next proportion than city youth within the Prairies (50%) (Table 2).

Considering rural and concrete residence alongside age teams revealed some vital nuances. Among youth aged 15 to 19, the same proportion reported a powerful sense of belonging in rural (66%) and concrete (63%) areas (Table 2). However, for youth of their 20s, city youth have been much less prone to report a excessive sense of belonging than their rural counterparts—41% of city youth aged 25 to 29 reported a powerful sense of belonging, in contrast with 53% of rural youth in the identical age group.

Because of rising housing prices, many older youth who could favor to dwell in city centres are more and more being displaced to extra reasonably priced municipalities on the outskirts of those cities,^{Note 9} and a few could face lengthy commutes to employment or instructional hubs. A earlier research discovered that Canadians dwelling in “commuter communities” simply outdoors of Canada’s largest cities skilled a number of the lowest ranges of sense of belonging.^{Note 10}

Comparing the traits of youth with stronger neighborhood ties throughout city and rural environments revealed another fascinating nuances. For occasion, a bigger proportion of non-racialized, non-Indigenous youth reported a powerful sense of belonging in rural communities (60%), in contrast with their counterparts in city centres (47%) (Table 2).^{Note 11} Furthermore, 2SLGBTQ+ youth in rural areas have been extra prone to report a powerful sense of belonging to their neighborhood (46%) than their city counterparts (34%).

A powerful sense of belonging is related to optimistic basic well being and psychological well being amongst youth

Most youth with a powerful sense of belonging (96%) additionally reported being in good bodily well being, in contrast with 87% of youth with a weaker sense of belonging (Table 3). This discovering is in keeping with earlier research^{Note 12} that exposed {that a} robust sense of belonging is strongly and persistently positively related to self-perceived well being. Similar patterns have been seen for psychological well-being; amongst youth with a powerful sense of belonging, 86% reported optimistic psychological well being, in contrast with 59% of younger individuals with a weaker sense of belonging (Table 3). Some analysis means that this could possibly be partly as a result of the social norms related to neighborhood involvement result in extra health-promoting behaviours. At the identical time, social isolation causes stress, which might result in poorer well being outcomes.^{Note 13}

In addition to reporting higher basic well being and psychological well being, youth with a powerful sense of belonging have been extra prone to report all the time or usually having somebody to depend on (90%) than these with a weaker sense of belonging (69%) (Table 3). An additional age breakdown reveals that youth aged 15 to 19 have been extra prone to have somebody to depend on (84%), in contrast with these aged 20 to 24 (79%) or 25 to 29 (76%). This result’s in keeping with the thought of youngsters being extra rooted inside their communities.

Similar patterns emerged relating to future outlook—youth with a powerful sense of belonging to their neighborhood have been extra prone to report that they’d a hopeful view of the long run (77%) than these with a weaker sense of belonging (44%) (Table 3). Additionally, youth aged 15 to 19 have been extra prone to report a optimistic future outlook (64%), in contrast with these aged 20 to 24 or 25 to 29 (56% for each age teams).

In phrases of loneliness, 1 in 10 youth with a powerful sense of belonging (10%) reported recurrently feeling lonely, in contrast with 3 in 10 youth with a weaker sense of belonging (30%). In the same vein, youth who had a powerful sense of belonging have been extra prone to report being happy with their friendships (78%) and household relationships (86%), in contrast with these with a weaker sense of belonging (46% and 61%, respectively) (Table 3). This is aligned with earlier analysis that discovered a correlation between a powerful sense of belonging and emotions of familiarity, reciprocal exchanges and belief in neighbours.^{Note 14}

Among youth with a powerful sense of belonging to their local people, residing in a rural space versus an city centre didn’t considerably influence different high quality of life outcomes. The one exception was loneliness; 61% of rural youth with a powerful sense of belonging reported hardly ever or by no means feeling lonely, in contrast with 54% of city youth with a powerful sense of belonging.

Conclusion

Given the associations between a powerful sense of belonging and optimistic well being and total well-being, this text explored a number of the geographic components and sociodemographic traits of youth with stronger neighborhood ties.

By inspecting city and rural variations, along with varied different demographic traits or entry to help networks, this text discovered that, total, city youth have weaker neighborhood ties than rural youth. It additionally discovered that youth aged 20 to 29—notably these in city areas—report a decrease sense of belonging to their neighborhood.

The transition to maturity can function many adjustments, comparable to shifting out or shifting again in with dad and mom,^{Note 15} in addition to exploring educational pursuits, profession alternatives or private relationships. Therefore, some younger adults won’t really feel “rooted” of their communities at this stage of their lives, notably those that are experiencing main life adjustments. This lack of stability could contribute to a weaker sense of belonging to at least one’s neighborhood.

Data sources, strategies and limitations

Data sources

The knowledge used on this article are from the Canadian Social Survey (CSS), utilizing waves collected from April 2021 to December 2024. The CSS is a voluntary, cross-sectional, quarterly survey that collects data on well-being, well being, time use, confidence in establishments and different social points. The goal inhabitants for the CSS is all non-institutionalized individuals aged 15 or older dwelling off reserve inside the 10 provinces of Canada. Exclusions characterize lower than 2% of the Canadian inhabitants aged 15 and older. The response fee for every cycle different from 43.3% to 58.9%, with a stratified pattern of roughly 20,000 dwellings chosen probabilistically. Population-level estimates within the time sequence have been decided utilizing survey and bootstrap weights to replicate the underlying inhabitants of Canada.

Methods

Using pooled knowledge from the 11 waves of the CSS (2021 to 2024) that requested the query “How would you describe your sense of belonging to your local community?” this paper examines the proportion of youth aged 15 to 29 who reported that they’d a “somewhat strong” or “very strong” sense of belonging to their local people to evaluate belonging throughout different demographic traits and high quality of life indicators.

When acceptable, a linear correlation mannequin was used for time sequence to supply an estimate of annual proportion level adjustments for some indicators.

A logistic regression mannequin was used to evaluate whether or not the connection between sense of belonging and varied particular person traits nonetheless exists when accounting for different attribute variables, comparable to gender, 2SLGBTQ+ identification, transgender identification, racialized standing, immigrant standing, incapacity standing, area, age grouping and rural or city place of residence.

Limitations

A limitation of utilizing the “urban” versus “rural” designation is that these are broad classes—disaggregation at a decrease degree of geography would paint a extra nuanced image.

Chart 2 examines sense of belonging over time (third quarter of 2021 to fourth quarter of 2024), however there’s a potential for seasonal influences on how respondents answered survey questions, and these knowledge weren’t adjusted for seasonality.

References

Arriagada, Paula, Farhana Khanam and Yujiro Sano. 2022. “Chapter 6: Political participation, civic engagement and caregiving among youth in Canada.” Portrait of Youth in Canada: Data Report. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 42‑28‑0001.

Brown, Denver M.Y., Joan Cairney, Sina Azimi, Elizabeth Vandenborn, Mark W. Burner, Katherine A. Tamminen and Matthew W. Kwan. 2023. “Towards the development of a quality youth sport experience measure: Understanding participant and stakeholder perspectives.” PLoS ONE. Vol. 18, no. 7.

Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. 2024. Sport Participation.

Dirksmeier, Peter. 2025. “A sense of belonging to the neighbourhood in places beyond the metropolis – the role of social infrastructure.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 12, p. 774.

Eliason, Scott R., Jeylan T. Mortimer and Mike Vuolo. 2015. “The Transition to Adulthood: Life Course Structures and Subjective Perceptions.” Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 205-227.

Kitchen, Peter, Allison Williams and James Chowhan. 2012. “Sense of Community Belonging and Health in Canada: A Regional Analysis.” Social Indicators Research. Vol. 107, pp. 103-126.

Ross, Nancy. 2002. “Community belonging and health.” Health Reports. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003.

Sano, Yujiro, Cathlene Hillier, Michael Haan and David Zarifa. 2020. “Youth migration in the context of rural brain drain: Longitudinal evidence from Canada.” Journal of Rural and Community Development. Vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 100-119.

Schellenberg, Grant, Chaohui Lu, Christoph Schimmele and Feng Hou. 2017. “The Correlates of Self-Assessed Community Belonging in Canada: Social Capital, Neighbourhood Characteristics, and Rootedness.” Social Indicators Research. Vol. 140, pp. 597-618.

Statistics Canada. 2017 (2 August). “Families, households and marital status: Key results from the 2016 Census.” The Daily.

Statistics Canada. 2022 (19 August). “Almost half of Canadians report a strong sense of belonging to their local community.” The Daily.

Statistics Canada. 2023 (20 September). “Navigating Socioeconomic Obstacles: Impact on the Well-being of Canadian Youth.” The Daily.

Thomson, Myfanwy, Maire Sinha, Simon Hemm and Lauren Pinault. 2025. “Beyond urban and rural: Rethinking the social geography of Canada.” Insights on Canadian Society. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-006-X.