Influence of Social Capital on Community Participation with Community Development as an Intervening Variable: A Systematic Literature Review and Path Analysis Study Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025 Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2025.9.2.339 ARTICLE Influence of Social Capital on Community Participation With Community Development as an Intervening Variable Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Djati, Bandung, Indonesia ABSTRACT This study aims to analyze the influence of social capital comprising trust, social networks, and social values on community development and community participation. Additionally, it explores the mediating role of community development in the relationship between the dimensions of social capital and community participation. A mixed- method approach was employed, combining a systematic literature review with path analysis, to provide both conceptual and empirical insights into the dynamics of social capital in community empowerment. The obtained results showed that trust and network had a positive and significant impact on community development and community participation while social values had no significant influence, possibly due to the abstract nature of the associated values and the time required to influence community dynamics. Accordingly, community development was observed to effectively mediate influence of trust and network on community participation by fostering productive interactions and enhancing collective awareness. Regardless of the fact that social values had no direct impact, reinforcing these values remains very important for building solidarity and collective awareness. These results offer valuable contributions to the understanding of social capital’s multidimensional role in supporting participatory and sustainable community development initiatives. KEYWORDS social capital, trust, social networks, social values, community development, community participation Received 2 December 2024 © 2025 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Accepted 20 June 2025 moh.dulkiah@uinsgd.ac.id, anggisaepulmajid123@gmail.com Published online 12 July 2025 https://changing-sp.com/ mailto:moh.dulkiah@uinsgd.ac.id mailto:anggisaepulmajid123@gmail.com 502 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Introduction Community development is a multidimensional process aimed at improving the well-being and quality of life within communities in a specific geographical area. This process typically comprises the organization of various programs and interventions designed specifically to address diverse social, economic, and environmental issues (Bahri et al., 2023). Its primary goal is to foster sustainable growth and enhance the capacity and participation of communities (Prince, 2024). In this context, community development is not limited to physical aspects but also includes strengthening social structures and interactions among individuals within community (Parker, 2012). Social capital refers to resources embedded in social networks, including trust, norms/values, and interactions that facilitate collaboration among individuals within community (Enderle, 2024). This form of capital is generally categorized into two types, namely bonding social capital, which strengthens ties within homogeneous groups, and bridging social capital, which connects diverse groups (Halstead et al., 2022). Moreover, strong social capital within community enhanced members’ participation in social and developmental activities. This is confirmed by the fact that trust and interpersonal relationships have significantly contributed to the adoption of collective measures capable of strengthening cohesion and achieving common goals (Carmen et al., 2022). Another study has also reported that strengthening social capital contributed to more effective cooperation within communities, thereby improving the quality and sustainability of various community development initiatives (Onyx & Leonard, 2010). On a global scale, community development has been observed to be carried out using various unique approaches with the aim of addressing the distinct social, economic, and political challenges faced by different nations. For instance, in the United Kingdom, a decentralized and participatory governance approach is adopted, known as the “Big Society” initiative, which promotes social action despite facing budget cuts (Marleni et al., 2018; Prince, 2024). In Japan, the concept of machizukuri [community planning] is adopted. This concept emphasizes collaborative decision- making to address demographic challenges and strengthen communities through social exchange programs such as fureai kippu [caring relationship tickets] (Kusakabe, 2013). Accordingly, in Africa, microfinance programs and women’s cooperatives are organized with the primary aim of reducing poverty and enhancing food security, despite facing challenges such as conflicts and climate change (Abdulai & Tewari, 2017). Based on observation, social capital plays a significant role in sustainable community development, as networks of trust and interpersonal interactions invariably enable effective collaboration. To further support this observation, Marleni et al. (2018) emphasized how globalization dynamics affected rural communities, and how profit-oriented values reduced participation in social organizations. Beausaert et al. (2023) reported that support from colleagues and supervisors (external social capital) positively influenced the well-being of students over time. Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 503 Bahri et al. (2023) examined social and cultural capital in Tapong Village, and showed how traditional norms and values, which were maintained by customary institutions, strengthened community relationships and promoted inclusive decision- making through collective discussions. Across different regions, the interaction between social and cultural capital has been observed to support sustainable development by reinforcing community identity and harmony. For instance, in India, Dineshappa (2022) reported how social capital bridged social groups, thereby reducing inequalities and fostering societal integration. The investigation showed how social capital facilitated inclusive collective decision-making and ensured community needs were comprehensively addressed. Similarly, Suhaeb & Kaseng (2023) found that social capital not only comprised relational networks but also included norms and values with the capability of binding communities to productivity and economic growth, particularly in rural areas. Bakari (2022) further emphasized the role of social capital in inclusive decision-making, particularly in capitalist communities requiring equality. The study recommended investing in social capital through inclusive policies to strengthen community participation. Furthermore, Prince (2024) suggested that fundamental mechanisms of social capital, such as trust and civic engagement, had consistent adaptable principles across contexts. Based on these elucidations, an inference can be made that social capital is a priority in inclusive and sustainable development. The aforementioned discussions consistently showed that social capital is a foundational element in community development, both locally and broadly. Among various social groups, students act as significant agents of change (Saz- Gil et al., 2021), as alongside their educational processes, they actively participate in community activities, which invariably impacts socioeconomic development. The role of students as change agents is essential in community development, as the group acts as catalysts driving social change and inspiring community inclusiveness (Abada et al., 2023). Social interaction has been reported to be a powerful element in the mobilization of social actors (Hidalgo et al., 2021). Within this form of interaction, students were observed to not only provide understanding but also strengthen social capital within communities, which in turn increases public participation in development processes (Budowle et al., 2021). Based on this insight, an inference can be made that the presence of students as catalysts enhances social capital, expands networks, and facilitates collaborations that support community development. Aldrich and Meyer (2015) have shown that social capital influenced community participation in various aspects of development. Further, Nugrahani et al.(2019) reported that the trust component facilitates positive interpersonal relationships, the networks component elucidates to act as channels for communication and coordination, and the values component creates shared norms that guide collective actions. Despite the widely recognized importance of social capital, gaps remain in understanding how it mediates the relationship between community development and community participation. Specifically, the role of students as change agents in local communities has not been extensively explored, even though the contributions made by the demographic are recognized as driving factors in community development initiatives. https://changing-sp.com/ 504 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid The current study aims to comprehensively examine how the dimensions of social capital (trust, network, and value) influence community development and community participation. Furthermore, it explores the role of community development as a mediator in the relationship between social capital and community participation. By adopting a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach and path analysis, this investigation is expected to provide both theoretical and practical contributions to understanding the multidimensional dynamics of social capital in the context of sustainable community development. The adopted approach was selected with the specific aim of offering valuable insights for academics and policymakers who are interested in designing more effective interventions to enhance social capital and identify the role of university students in strengthening community participation in development programs. To deepen the analysis, the study proposes the following question in the SLR approach: How do the dimensions of social capital—trust, network, and value—affect community development and participation in the context of sustainable community development? This study is designed based on the following hypotheses, all of which are to be tested using path analysis: Hypothesis 1 (H1): Trust (X1) has a positive and significant effect on Community Development (Y1). Hypothesis 2 (H2): Network (X2) has a positive and significant effect on Community Development (Y1). Hypothesis 3 (H3): Value (X3) has a positive and significant effect on Community Development (Y1). Hypothesis 4 (H4): Community Development (Y1) has a positive and significant effect on Community Participation (Y2). Hypothesis 5 (H5): Trust (X1) has a positive and significant effect on Community Participation (Y2). Hypothesis 6 (H6): Network (X2) has a positive and significant effect on Community Participation (Y2). Hypothesis 7 (H7): Value (X3) has a positive and significant effect on Community Participation (Y2). Three hypotheses were formulated regarding the mediating role of community development in the relationship between social capital and community participation. These hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis 8 (H8): Community Development (Y1) mediates the effect of Trust (X1) on Community participation (Y2). Hypothesis 9 (H9): Community Development (Y1) mediates the effect of Network (X2) on Community Participation (Y2). Hypothesis 10 (H10): Community Development (Y1) mediates the effect of Value (X3) on Community Participation (Y2). The comprehensive approach through SLR and path analysis is expected to make a significant theoretical contribution to understanding the complexity of social capital and its multidimensional role in community development. Therefore, this study offers a deeper perspective for further investigations in the field of community development, Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 505 particularly concerning the role of social capital in driving participation and ensuring the sustainability of community initiatives. Literature Review Social capital has been observed to play a significant role in supporting community development and enhancing community participation. The significance of this capital lies in its ability to strengthen social relationships, foster trust, and facilitate cooperation among community members. Accordingly, Bakari (2022) emphasized that social capital enabled individuals within community to access resources more easily, share information, and initiate collective actions to address shared challenges. This invariably contributed to increased social cohesion and community resilience. The concept of social capital, as introduced by Putnam (1993), includes networks, norms, and trust as the foundational elements for achieving shared goals. As observed, the factor invariably enhanced connections among community members and supported effective collaboration by establishing strong networks (Halstead et al., 2022). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) divided social capital into three dimensions, namely structural, cognitive, and relational. The structural dimension comprised patterns of interaction and social networks, while the cognitive dimension focused on shared visions and norms that facilitate collaboration. The relational dimension, on the other hand, played a substantial role in building trust and loyalty, which are generally essential for maintaining sustainable relationships within community (Prakasa, 2018). In the context of community development, social capital significantly impacts the quality of life within communities. Prince (2024) showed that social capital strengthened social norms and collective identity, thereby enhancing solidarity and creating a sense of belonging among community members. Social capital was also found to serve as a catalyst for resolving conflicts peacefully, strengthening advocacy, and empowering communities to meet respective needs independently. Marleni et al. (2018) further stated how the cultural elements inherent in social capital possessed traditional legitimacy that supported the success of development efforts. In community development, solid networks, norms, and organizations provide access for communities to actively engage in the planning and implementation of development policies. Moreover, Coleman (1988) explained that social capital comprised obligations, information channels, as well as norms and sanctions capable of effectively regulating social interactions. As reported, this structure enabled more efficient cooperation and reduced potential conflicts within community. Community participation, as an outcome of social capital, is a considerable factor in community-based development. Strong social capital can enhance community inclusiveness in sustainable development projects, such as cooperatives or local infrastructure initiatives. According to Apuke and Omar (2021), social interaction ties, sense of belonging, reciprocity, homophily, and trust served as effective predictive factors of behavior. https://changing-sp.com/ 506 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Methods The current study was carried out using a mixed-methods approach, combining two methodologies, namely SLR and quantitative analysis. This approach was selected with the primary aim of achieving a comprehensive understanding of the study topic while quantitatively measuring influence between variables studied. Systematic Literature Review A SLR approach is defined as a systematic process used for identifying, evaluating, and interpreting all relevant investigations related to the topic of influence of social capital on community development, particularly in the context of community empowerment systems. Generally, the SLR aims to provide a comprehensive answer to the study questions. In accordance with the SLR approach, data collection was carried out in this study through a literature review technique using the “Publish or Perish” application on the Google Scholar1 platform. The search keywords include “social capital,” “community empowerment,” and “community development.” Google Scholar was selected as the study database due to its broad accessibility and its capability to avail various articles from both international and national journals. This selection is based on the ease of access and the extensive coverage of results provided. Subsequent to data collection, data filtering was carried out based on the publication year criteria, ranging from 2014 to 2024. It is also important to comprehend that the selection of data was in accordance with quality, relevance, and the reputation of the sources. The data extraction process adhered to principles of quality and relevance to the study topic. Regarding the types of publications analyzed, this study focused primarily on quality, relevance, and reputable journals. The reputation criterion was determined by the journals’ indexation in reputable databases such as Scopus2 or journals that have been nationally or internationally accredited. For further analysis, this study adopted the use of VOSviewer3 software (Version 1.6.20) for bibliometric analysis to examine study trends within the relevant publication years. Additionally, Mendeley4 software (Version 1.19.8) was used to structure the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analysis) model, ensuring validity and accuracy in the literature selection process. The combination of VOSviewer and Mendeley ensured that the data used were of high quality and effectively supported answering the study questions. This approach is expected to provide an in-depth understanding of the role of social capital in community empowerment systems. 1 https://scholar.google.com 2 https://www.scopus.com 3 https://www.vosviewer.com 4 https://www.mendeley.com https://scholar.google.com https://www.scopus.com https://www.vosviewer.com https://www.mendeley.com Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 507 Path Analysis The path analysis approach was adopted in this study to examine causal relationships between independent and dependent variables, where these effects may occur either directly or indirectly through an intervening variable. In the context of the observed subject matter, the analyzed variables include Trust (X1), Network (X2), and Value (X3) as independent variables, with Community Development (Y1) as the intervening variable, and Community Participation (Y2) as the dependent variable. The influence of social capital (trust, network, and values) on community development is represented in Substructural Equation 1. Y1 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y1X1 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y1X2 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y1X3 + ε1, (1) Y2 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2X1 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2X2 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2X3 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2Y1+ ε2, (2) (1) where Y1 = Community Development, X1 = Trust, X2 = Network, X3 = Value, ε1= Residual. The influence of Social Capital (Trust, Network, and Value) and Community Development on Community Participation is represented in Substructural Equation 2: Y1 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y1X1 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y1X2 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y1X3 + ε1, (1) Y2 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2X1 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2X2 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2X3 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝Y2Y1+ ε2, (2) (2) where Y2 = Community Participation, X1 = Trust, X2 = Network, X3 = Value, Y1 = Community Development, ε2 = Residual. Data analysis was conducted using SmartPLS statistical software (Version 4.1.1.1), a comprehensive tool for calculating path coefficients and assessing the significance of relationships among variables under investigation. Based on observation, this software has the capability to effectively determine whether trust, networks, and values variables significantly impact community development and community participation. Accordingly, to ensure the reliability and validity of the results, comprehensive validity and reliability tests of the instruments were conducted, ensuring that the data analyzed meets high-quality standards. Hypothesis testing was conducted based on the structural model that has been developed, where each relationship between variables was tested to determine the significance of respective effects. This testing includes an analysis of the direct effects of trust, network, and value on community development and community participation. Furthermore, the analysis also comprised testing mediation effects by assessing the role of community development as a mediating variable in the relationship between social capital and community participation. The aforementioned approaches were selected primarily because each is expected to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of the relationships between variables in the context of community empowerment. By adopting the approaches, the current investigation aims to answer the study questions comprehensively and provide empirical evidence on influence of social capital in enhancing community development and participation. https://changing-sp.com/ 508 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Results and Discussion Network Visualization Analysis Based on the data collection for this study, a total of 717 records were retrieved from the Google Scholar database using the specified search criteria. These records were subsequently analyzed (Figure 1). Figure 1 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) Note. Source: developed by the authors. The results of the network visualization analysis emphasized the key dynamics of the topic “Influence of Social Capital on Community Participation through Community Development” across three main clusters namely “Social Capital,” “Community Development,” and “Study” (Figure 2). The “Social Capital” cluster emphasized the essential role of social capital in strengthening community participation, as reported by Marleni et al. (2018), who stated the importance of fostering social bonds and inclusivity in collective decision-making. Concerning the “Community Development” cluster, Suhaeb and Kaseng (2023) and Bahri et al. (2023) reported that community development enhanced citizen engagement and collaboration rooted in social norms. Lastly, the “Study” cluster stressed the significance of investigating social capital to improve participation. As discussed by Bakari (2022) and Prince (2024), the factors of trust and civic engagement significantly influenced the adoption of inclusive development. This analysis showed that community development driven by social capital is effective in fostering sustainable participation and generating significant social impact. Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 509 Figure 2 Map of Network Visualization Analysis Results (Social Capital on Community Development) Note. Source: developed by the authors. The overlay visualization showed the dynamic progression of the themes “Social Capital,” “Community Development,” and “Study” from 2014 to 2024 (Figure 3). During 2014–2017, the “Study” cluster (in purple) dominated, marking an initial focus on conceptual studies regarding the interaction between social capital and community development. Subsequently, from 2018–2019, attention shifted to core elements of social capital, such as trust and social networks, in fostering community cohesion (in green). From 2020 to 2024, the focus transitioned to “Community Development” (in yellow), which effectively emphasized the role of community development as an effective bridge for enhancing community participation. This visualization shows a shift from conceptual understanding to practical application, showcasing the contribution of each cluster in comprehending influence of social capital through community development. Figure 3 Results of Overlay Visualization Analysis (Social Capital on Community Development) Note. Source: developed by the authors. https://changing-sp.com/ 510 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Density Visualization Analysis The density visualization laid emphasis on the high study intensity on “Social Capital,” “Community Development,” and “Study” (Figure 4). The bright green color in the “Social Capital” cluster shows a primary focus on trust, norms, and social networks in strengthening social cohesion. The bright yellow surrounding “Community Development” constitutes its role as a bridge between social capital and more active Community Participation. Meanwhile, the bright purple in the “Study” cluster reflects the significance of conceptual studies as a foundation for understanding the interaction between social capital and Community Development. This visualization showed a strong study trend aimed at applying the outlined concepts to enhance community engagement. Figure 4 Results of Density Visualization Analysis (Social Capital on Community Development) Note. Source: developed by the authors. Graphical Output Figure 5 presents the graphical output of the path analysis conducted using SmartPLS. The diagram illustrates the causal relationships among the studied variables: Trust, Social Network, Social Value, Community Development, and Community Participation. The arrows indicate the direction of influence between variables, while the numbers shown represent the path coefficient values for each relationship. This visualization facilitates a clearer understanding of the strength and direction of the relationships within the tested model. Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 511 Figure 5 Graphical Output Note. Source: developed by the authors. Construct Reliability and Validity Table 2 presents the results of the construct reliability and validity measurements for variables Community Development, Community Participation, Network, Trust, and Value. Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability (rho_a and rho_c) were used to assess the internal consistency of the constructs, where values above .7 implied high reliability. All variables achieved Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability values exceeding .9, signifying that the constructs used were high reliable and consistent in measuring respective variables. Table 2 Construct Reliability and Validity Variable Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability (rho_a) Composite reliability (rho_c) Average variance extracted Community Development .976 .977 .981 .894 Community Participation .970 .979 .977 .875 Network .954 .957 .970 .916 Trust .973 .974 .979 .903 Value .948 .948 .966 .906 Note. Source: developed by the authors. https://changing-sp.com/ 512 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was used to assess convergent validity. According to predefined standards, an AVE value above .5 signifies that the construct explained more than half of the variance of its indicators. The AVE values for all the constructs observed in this investigation exceeded .87, implying that each possessed strong validity and served as a comprehensive representation of its indicators. In essence, the table shows that all variables in the model had excellent reliability and validity. Discriminant Validity Cross-Loadings Table 3 demonstrates the results of discriminant validity testing through cross- loadings between indicators alongside respective constructs, namely Community Development, Community Participation, Network, Trust, and Value. Generally, when testing for discriminant validity, each indicator is expected to have the highest loading value on the construct it represents compared to other constructs. Table 3 Discriminant Validity Cross-Loadings Indicator Community Development Community Participation Network Trust Value X1.1 0.906 0.914 0.894 0.939 0.872 X1.2 0.956 0.966 0.962 0.963 0.923 X1.3 0.878 0.896 0.936 0.933 0.955 X1.4 0.935 0.937 0.945 0.962 0.882 X1.5 0.915 0.918 0.908 0.954 0.898 X2.1 0.930 0.943 0.959 0.937 0.886 X2.2 0.867 0.877 0.933 0.916 0.943 X2.3 0.959 0.965 0.979 0.955 0.917 X3.1 0.874 0.884 0.914 0.910 0.971 X3.2 0.927 0.922 0.893 0.892 0.915 X3.3 0.884 0.880 0.917 0.916 0.968 Y.1 0.921 0.953 0.910 0.930 0.887 Y.2 0.685 0.755 0.689 0.686 0.664 Y.3 0.963 0.977 0.965 0.967 0.922 Y.4 0.936 0.935 0.902 0.905 0.913 Y.5 0.966 0.982 0.970 0.972 0.933 Y.6 0.972 0.989 0.976 0.977 0.936 Z.1 0.943 0.927 0.894 0.903 0.917 Z.2 0.949 0.905 0.902 0.906 0.876 Z.3 0.936 0.925 0.889 0.898 0.916 Z.4 0.959 0.940 0.925 0.939 0.889 Z.5 0.966 0.957 0.946 0.949 0.902 Z.6 0.920 0.883 0.896 0.888 0.843 Note. Source: developed by the authors. Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 513 Table 3 presents the indicators used in this study to measure the main variables. The Trust variable (X1) consists of five indicators, labeled X1.1 to X1.5. The Social Network variable (X2) is measured by three indicators, namely X2.1 to X2.3. The Social Value variable (X3) consists of three indicators, X3.1 to X3.3. The Community Development variable (Z) has six indicators, Z1 to Z6, and the Community Participation variable (Y) is also measured using six indicators, Y1 to Y6. This labeling facilitates data management and path analysis conducted using the SmartPLS software. In line with the established criteria, the results presented in the table show that most indicators have the highest loading values on their respective constructs. Indicators Y1 to Y6 exhibit the highest loadings on the Community Participation construct, while indicators X3.1 to X3.3 show the highest loadings on the Social Network construct. These results indicate that each indicator more strongly measures its intended construct compared to others, thereby fulfilling the criteria for discriminant validity. Overall, the cross-loading results confirm that the model possesses adequate discriminant validity by ensuring each construct is accurately measured by its indicators without overlap with other constructs. Path Coefficients Table 4 presents the results of the analysis of relationships between variables in the model, measuring the strength and significance of the effects between variables. Each row represents a relationship between variables, with values including the original sample (O), sample mean (M), standard deviation (SD), t-statistics (the absolute value of O divided by SD), and p-values. Table 4 Path Coefficients Variable Original sample (O) M SD t-statistics (|O/SD|) p-values Community Development– Community Participation 0.502 0.536 0.158 3.174 .002 Network–Community Development 0.278 0.276 0.105 2.636 .009 Trust–Community Development 0.547 0.546 0.112 4.884 .000 Trust–Community Participation 0.462 0.432 0.147 3.139 .002 Value–Community Development 0.155 0.158 0.115 1.351 .177 Value–Community Participation 0.029 0.025 0.069 0.423 .672 Note. Source: developed by the authors. Based on the observations made, the relationship between Community Development and Community Participation showed a significant positive effect with a path coefficient of 0.502, supported by a t-statistic greater than 2 (3.174) and a p-value less than .05 (.002). Similarly, the Network reflected a significant positive https://changing-sp.com/ 514 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid effect on Community Development with a path coefficient of 0.278, a t-statistic of 2.636, and a p-value of .009, indicating significance at the .05 level. Trust similarly showed a strong and significant effect on Community Development, with a path coefficient of 0.547, a very high t-statistic (4.884), and a very small p-value (.000). Furthermore, Trust was also observed to have a significant positive influence on Community Participation with a path coefficient of 0.462, a t-statistic of 3.139, and a p-value of .002, emphasizing its critical role in influencing Community Participation. Value showed a positive though non-significant effect on Community Development, with a path coefficient of 0.155, a t-statistic of 1.351, and a p-value of .177, exceeding the .05 threshold. Influence of Value on Community Participation was also observed to be minimal and insignificant, as evidenced by a very small path coefficient (0.029), a t-statistic of 0.423, and a p-value of .672. Essentially, the table shows that the relationships between Community Development and Community Participation, as well as between Trust and both variables, were highly significant. In contrast, influence of Value on both variables was not statistically significant. Indirect Effects Table 5 shows the results of the indirect influence of variables Network, Trust, and Value on Community Participation, with Community Development acting as an intervening variable. Based on the observations made, network had an indirect effect of 0.139, signifying that social networks positively influenced Community Participation through the role of Community Development. Trust showed a larger indirect effect of 0.275, showing that trust was a crucial factor in enhancing Community Participation through Community Development. Meanwhile, Value had an indirect effect of 0.078, meaning that values or norms within community also contributed, although to a lesser extent compared to social networks and trust. Table 5 Indirect Effects Variable Specific indirect effects Network–Community Development–Community Participation 0.139 Trust–Community Development–Community Participation 0.275 Value–Community Development–Community Participation 0.078 Note. Source: developed by the authors. R-Square Table 6 shows the R-square and adjusted R-square values for variables Community Development and Community Participation. R-square is a measure that reflects how much the independent variables in the model can explain the dependent variable. The R-square value of 0.942 for Community Development suggested that 94.2% of the variation in Community Development could be explained by the independent variables Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 515 in the model, while the adjusted R-square of 0.941 confirms the consistency of this value, accounting for the number of variables in the model. Table 6 Results of R2 and Adjusted R2 Calculations Variable R-square R-square adjusted Community Development 0.942 0.941 Community Participation 0.968 0.968 Note. Source: developed by the authors. For Community Participation, both the R-square and adjusted R-square values were 0.968, meaning that 96.8% of the variation in Community Participation could be explained by the independent variables in the model. The high R-square values for both variables showed that the model was highly effective in explaining the relationships between variables in the context of Community Development and participation. Total Effects Table 7 shows the entire influence between variables in the model, including path coefficients, sample mean, standard deviation, t-statistics (the absolute value of the coefficient divided by the standard deviation), and p-values. Table 7 Total Effects Original sample (O) M SD t-statistics (|O/SD|) p-value Community Development -> Community Participation 0.502 0.536 0.158 3.174 .002 Network -> Community Development 0.278 0.276 0.105 2.636 .009 Network -> Community Participation 0.139 0.151 0.080 1.747 .081 Trust -> Community Development 0.547 0.546 0.112 4.884 .000 Trust -> Community Participation 0.737 0.728 0.102 7.238 .000 Value -> Community Development 0.155 0.158 0.115 1.351 .177 Value -> Community Participation 0.107 0.104 0.108 0.990 .323 Note. Source: developed by the authors. The path coefficient between Community Development and Community Participation was 0.502, implying a significant positive effect. With a t-statistics value of 3.174 and a p-value of .002, this effect is significant at the .05 level. The path https://changing-sp.com/ 516 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid coefficient between Network and Community Development was similarly observed to be 0.278, also reflecting a significant positive effect, with a t-statistics value of 2.636 and a p-value of .009, making this relationship significant. However, the path coefficient between Network and Community Participation was 0.139, with a t-statistics value of 1.747 and a p-value of .081, which is greater than .05. This signified that the effect is not significant at the .05 level. The observed path coefficient between Trust and Community Development was 0.547, implying a strong and highly significant positive effect, as evidenced by the presence of a very high t-statistics value of 4.884 and a p-value of .000. The path coefficient between Trust and Community Participation was found to be 0.737, showing a very strong and significant positive effect at the .05 level, as confirmed by the observed t-statistics value of 7.238 and p-value of .000. For Value and Community Development, the path coefficient observed was 0.155, signifying a positive effect, but with a t-statistics value of 1.351 and a p-value of .177, the effect was insignificant. Similarly, for Value and Community Participation, the path coefficient was 0.107, but with a t-statistics value of 0.990 and a p-value of .323, this effect was also not significant at the .05 level. Trust had a highly significant effect on both Community Development and Community Participation, while the effect of Network on Community Development is significant. However, the effect of Value on both variables was observed to be insignificant. Based on the path analysis results presented, each hypothesis was tested and evaluated for acceptance or rejection. The results of the hypothesis testing in this study provide substantial insights into the relationships between key variables, including Trust (X1), Network (X2), Value (X3), Community Development (Y1), and Community Participation (Y2). The analysis of the main hypotheses (H1–H7) showed several significant and non-significant results, which contributed to a deeper understanding of how these variables interact in the context of Community Development and participation. Starting with H1, the hypothesis that Trust has a positive and significant effect on Community Development was accepted. This acceptance was because the statistical analysis showed a highly significant path coefficient with a t-statistics value of 4.884 and a p-value of .000, signifying that Trust played a very substantial role in influencing development of community. The obtained result in this regard corresponds with theoretical expectations that trust fosters collaboration and positive relationships within communities, thereby enhancing development. Following H1, H2 was similarly accepted, as Network showed a positive and significant effect on Community Development. The path coefficient for this relationship is 0.278, with a t-statistics value of 2.636 and a p-value of .009. This reflected the significance of networks of social connections in driving Community Development, supporting the idea that access to resources, information, and support through networks is a key factor in the advancement of community initiatives. Dissimilar to H1 and H2, H3 was rejected. This was because the hypothesis, which suggested that Value has a positive and significant effect on Community Development was not supported by the data. The p-value for this relationship is .177, which exceeded Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 517 the threshold of .05 for statistical significance. These observations suggest that, in the context of the present study, the values or norms within a community may not have as strong an impact on the community’s development as anticipated. However, it may reflect that other factors, such as Trust and Network, have a more substantial influence on development process. H4, supposing that Community Development positively influence Community Participation was accepted. This was primarily because the data showed a significant relationship with a t-statistics value of 3.174 and a p-value of .002, signifying that as Community Development progresses, participation of community members increases. The results made in this regard support the notion that successful Community Development initiatives create more opportunities and motivations for individuals to engage in activities contributing to the growth of respective communities. Similarly, H5, which posits that Trust has a positive and significant effect on Community Participation, was accepted due to the results showing a strong and significant path coefficient of 0.462, with a t-statistics of 3.139 and p-value of .002. The result further emphasizes that Trust was a vital factor in motivating community members to participate actively in community-driven efforts. Trust builds confidence and cooperation, which are essential for individuals to engage in collective action and contribute to community goals. On the other hand, H6 was rejected, as Network did not significantly affect Community Participation. The obtained p-value of .081 was above the .05 significance threshold, indicating that, in this model, the Network had no direct substantial impact on participation levels. While networks are essential for Community Development, the factor may not necessarily translate directly into greater participation, suggesting that other factors, such as individual motivation or trust, may play more important roles in promoting active inclusiveness. H7 was rejected as Value did not significantly influence Community Participation. With a p-value of .323, this result suggests that the values and norms of communities may not directly drive individuals to participate in community activities. This may reflect the complexity of the factors influencing participation, where values alone may not be sufficient without the underlying structures of trust and development. Concerning the mediation hypotheses (H8–H10), the analysis showed that H8, which suggested that Community Development mediates the relationship between Trust and Community Participation, is accepted. The total effects analysis reflected that Community Development played a significant mediating role in the relationship between Trust and Community Participation, with a t-statistics value of 7.238 and a p-value of .000. This result suggests that Trust enhances Community Development, which in turn fosters greater Community Participation. Based on these observations, an inference can be made that the role of Community Development is very significant in channelling the effects of Trust into increased participation. H9 was similarly accepted, as Community Development was observed to effectively mediate the effect of Network on Community Participation. Although the direct effect of Network on Community Participation was not significant (p-value = .081), the mediation effect of Community Development remained significant. This showed https://changing-sp.com/ 518 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid that even though Network alone may not directly influence participation, the factor possessed significant indirect effects by contributing to Community Development, which then drives participation. This emphasizes the importance of intermediary variables such as Community Development in translating influence of networks into meaningful community engagement. Lastly, H10 was rejected, since Value was found to act as an insignificant mediator in the relationship between Trust and Community Participation. Considering the fact that Value had no significant direct effect on either Community Development or Community Participation, it became clear also failed to act as a significant mediator in the observed relationships. This suggests that, within the study model, Value was less influential in shaping the dynamics of Community Development and participation compared to other factors such as Trust and Network. In essence, the results of this study emphasize the significant roles that Trust and Network play in both Community Development and Community Participation. Based on the observations made, Trust was shown to be particularly influential in both fostering Community Development and promoting active participation. Community Development, in turn, acted as an important mediator in translating these effects into greater participation. However, Value did not show a significant impact on these outcomes, signifying that the dynamics of community engagement and development were more influenced by relational and structural factors, such as Trust and Network, rather than by community values alone. These insights provide a comprehensive understanding of the key drivers of Community Development and participation, offering valuable implications for community policies and interventions. Discussion The results of this analysis showed that social capital, particularly trust and social networks, had a significant influence on community development and community participation. Meanwhile, social values did not show a significant impact on either variable. Community development was observed to act as an effective mediator, which strengthened influence of trust and social networks on community participation. This section will further discuss the roles and relationships between these variables in the context of social capital-based Community Development. Influence of Trust on Community Development and Participation In this study, trust within community was observed to have a significant impact on community development and participation. Trust variable showed high t-statistic values of 4.884 (p < .05) for Community Development and 7.238 (p < .05) for Community Participation. These results are in line with Colemans’ (1988) theory, which posits that trust is foundational in building strong social relationships and supporting productive collective action. Trust facilitates information exchange, strengthens social cohesion, and increases community engagement in joint activities. Putnam (2000) further reported how trust was a key factor in the success of social programs. This report was considered plausible because individuals who Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 519 trust one another typically possess more tendency to cooperate and participate in collective projects. Therefore, an inference was made that the success of community development heavily depends on the the level of trust community members have for each other. These results support the notion that trust plays a very important role in creating an environment conducive to collective action in development and participation. Influence of Social Networks on Community Development and Participation Social networks were similarly observed to significantly influence Community Development, with a t-statistic of 2.636 (p < .05). However, the direct impact of variable on Community Participation was not significant (t-statistic = 1.747; p > .05). This suggests that while social networks strengthen connections among community members and enhance social solidarity, the impact of the factor on participation depends on the success of Community Development process. Within this context, Granovetter (1973) elucidated that weak ties in social networks were often more effective in disseminating information and expanding collaborative opportunities. However, without strong structural support, social networks may not optimally enhance participation. Aldrich & Meyer (2015) also emphasized how social networks acted as bridges for resource exchange, even though the effectiveness of the factor in facilitating participation relied heavily on the manner in which communities organize and direct social engagement. The Mediating Role of Community Development in Enhancing Participation Community Development acted as an effective mediator by amplifying influence of trust and social networks on participation. Following the results of the path analysis conducted, community development served as a link that strengthened the impact of social capital on participation. This is in line with the Woolcock’s (1998) concept of social capital, where it was emphasized that effective community development enhanced participation through more productive and collaborative social interactions. Narayan (1999) stressed the importance of integrating social capital with concrete development programs. According to the study, the success of community development initiatives depends on the cooperation of individuals and groups within community, driven by strong trust and social networks. Based on this insight, community development should be viewed as a platform facilitating social interactions to promote active participation. The Limited Impact of Values on Community Development and Participation Although social values are often considered essential in building strong communities, this study found that values did not significantly influence community development (t-statistic = 1.351; p > .05) or participation (t-statistic = 0.990; p > .05). Presumably, social values promoted within community may be perceived as irrelevant or lacking direct benefits by its members. According to Inglehart (1997), social values are shaped by the sociocultural context of community. Therefore, the promotion of specific values in development https://changing-sp.com/ 520 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid programs must be carried out in line with local conditions and aspirations. If the promoted values do not resonate with community needs or experiences, they are unlikely to encourage participation. Thus, value-based community development programs should be tailored to the specific context and needs of the target population. Theoretical and Practical Contributions Theoretically, these results reinforce social capital frameworks proposed by Coleman (1988) and Putnam (2000), which emphasize the role of trust and networks in building productive social relationships. As elucidated by the investigations, trust facilitates cooperation and drives participation in collective efforts. The current study also provides empirical evidence that trust and networks play essential roles in community development and emphasizes how community development strengthens social capital’s impact on participation. The present study supports the mediation concept proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986), where community development was reported to be an effective mediating variable that enhanced the relationship between social capital (independent variable) and participation (dependent variable). Following this, Marleni et al. (2018) stated that despite rising materialism in globalization, social capital could still drove participation, specifically in rural communities where trust-based values were retained. This investigation offers relevant practical insights for policymakers designing community development programs. Policymakers are advised to prioritize strategies that build trust and strengthen social networks, as these factors significantly contribute to enhancing participation. Moreover, community development should be integrated into social initiatives to optimize the role of social capital in collective action. These results invariably reaffirm the importance of social capital in strengthening community relationships. Based on the observations made, trust among members played a central role in fostering collective action that drives participation Putnam (2000). Meanwhile, social networks served as tools to expand collaborative opportunities, though the factor’s effectiveness was found to depend solely on well- organized community development structures. With socially and culturally structured approaches, the positive impact of social capital on participation can be maximized. Conclusion This study, which was conducted using the SLR approach and path analysis, showed that social capital had a significant influence on community development and participation. The obtained results reflected how trust and social networks served as key components driving social dynamics within community, and how social values had no direct impact on community development and participation. Path analysis was carried out during the course of the investigation and the results showed that trust played the most dominant role in driving community development and enhancing participation. The factor was observed to serve as the foundation for building strong relationships, facilitating collaboration, and fostering collective engagement. Accordingly, social networks contribute to community development by accelerating the Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 521 flow of information and resource distribution. Regardless of the contributions made by this factor, its influence on participation was indirect and solely dependent on how well community development initiatives could manage and integrate these networks. In this study, community development acted as an effective mediator between social capital and participation. This process strengthened the outcomes of social interactions and expanded opportunities for collaboration within community. This result suggested that well-structured and inclusive development processes could optimize the benefits of social capital, promote broader participation, and drive sustainable social change. It also showed that social values had no significant impact on Community Development and participation. Further investigations are recommended to explore the conditions under which social values may become more relevant in fostering engagement and social dynamics within community. References Abada, R., Bentahar, S., & Ramdaniar, H. (2023). Student perspective as agent of change through education. Jurnal Eduscience, 10(2), 643–648. https://doi.org/10.36987/jes.v10i2.4717 Abdulai, A., & Tewari, D. D. (2017). Trade-off between outreach and sustainability of microfinance institutions: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Enterprise Development and Microfinance, 28(3), 162–181. https://doi.org/10.3362/1755-1986.16-00014 Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299 Apuke, O. D., & Omar, B. (2021). What drives news sharing behaviour among social media users? A relational communication model from the social capital perspective. International Sociology, 36(3), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920961323 Bahri, S., Maidin, R., Asmirah, Iskandar, Nonci, N., Burchanuddin, A., & Harifuddin. (2023). The urgency of social capital in local community development. Formosa Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.55927/ fjss.v2i3.6462 Bakari, C. (2022). Social capital in community development: A corner stone in the right to participation and the Leave No One Behind. Academia Letters, Article 4760. https://doi.org/10.20935/al4760 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Beausaert, S., Froehlich, D. E., Riley, P., & Gallant, A. (2023). What about school principals’ well-being? The role of social capital. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143221991853 https://changing-sp.com/ https://doi.org/10.36987/jes.v10i2.4717 https://doi.org/10.3362/1755-1986.16-00014 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299 https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920961323 https://doi.org/10.55927/fjss.v2i3.6462 https://doi.org/10.55927/fjss.v2i3.6462 https://doi.org/10.20935/al4760 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143221991853 522 Moh. Dulkiah, Anggi Saeful Majid Budowle, R., Krszjzaniek, E., & Taylor, C. (2021). Students as change agents for community—University sustainability transition partnerships. Sustainability, 13(11), Article 6036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116036 Carmen, E., Fazey, I., Ross, H., Bedinger, M., Smith, F. M., Prager, K., McClymont, K., & Morrison, D. (2022). Building community resilience in a context of climate change: The role of social capital. Ambio, 51(6), 1371–1387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1, Suppl.), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943 Dineshappa, S. (2022). Understanding social capital and its effects on community development. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 9(12), 366–372. http://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2212656.pdf Enderle, S. (2024). ‘Everything is different here…’: The effects of mismatched mobility cultures and differential capacities on the urban vélomobility practices of refugee and asylum seeking women in Germany. Travel Behaviour and Society, 36, Article 100771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100771 Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 Halstead, J. M., Deller, S. C., & Leyden, K. M. (2022). Social capital and community development: Where do we go from here? Community Development, 53(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1943696 Hidalgo, G., Monticelli, J. M., & Vargas Bortolaso, I. (2021). Social capital as a driver of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.1951819 Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press. Kusakabe, E. (2013). Advancing sustainable development at the local level: The case of machizukuri in Japanese cities. Progress in Planning, 80, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.06.001 Onyx, J., & Leonard, R. (2010). The conversion of social capital into community development: An intervention in Australia’s outback. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(2), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00897.x Marleni, Adiyalmon, & Elvawati. (2018). The dynamics of social capital in global era of rural communities (Case study poor people in Nagari Rambatan, Tanah Datar District). SHS Web of Conferences, 42, Article 98. https://doi.org/10.1051/ shsconf/20184200098 Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116036 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01678-9 https://doi.org/10.1086/228943 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100771 https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1943696 https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.1951819 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.06.001 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00897.x https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200098 https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200098 https://doi.org/10.2307/259373 Changing Societies & Personalities, 2025, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 501–523 523 Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty (Policy Research Working Paper 2167). The World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/989601468766526606 Nugrahani, T. S., Suharni, S., & Saptatiningsih, R. I. (2019). Potential of social capital and community participation in village development. JEJAK: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Kebijakan, 12(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.15294/jejak.v12i1.15775 Parker, A. (2012). Understanding social capital. In R. Brown & S. Waddington (Eds.), Share this too: More social media solutions for PR professionals (pp. 49–57). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207993.ch6 Prakasa, Y. (2018). Exploring the impact of social capital on entrepreneurial orientation and business performance (study on members of MSMEs communities in Malang). Profit: Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis, 12(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.21776/ ub.profit.2018.012.01.3 Prince, E. (2024). Role of social capital in community development. Journal of Advanced Sociology, 5(2), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.47941/jas.1860 Putnam, R. (1993) The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4, 35–42. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Saz-Gil, I., Bretos, I., & Díaz-Foncea, M. (2021). Cooperatives and social capital: A narrative literature review and directions for future research. Sustainability, 13(2), Article 534. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020534 Suhaeb, F. W., & Kaseng, E. S. (2023). Contribution of the role of social capital in the development of rural communities. Social Landscape Journal, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.56680/slj.v4i1.43905 Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006884930135 https://changing-sp.com/ https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/989601468766526606 https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/989601468766526606 https://doi.org/10.15294/jejak.v12i1.15775 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207993.ch6 https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.profit.2018.012.01.3 https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.profit.2018.012.01.3 https://doi.org/10.47941/jas.1860 https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020534 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006884930135