Abstract
Background
Differences in physical activity levels partly reflect structural inequalities in access to health opportunities. According to the socio-ecological model theory, physical activity is influenced by multiple factors across individual characteristics, interpersonal relationships, community environments, and policy systems. Among these, the spatial distribution of fitness facilities, as a key component of urban planning, potential to reshape the allocation of community level and thus offers a novel pathway to alleviate health inequities. In recent years, the Chinese government has actively promoted the development of the 15-minute fitness circle, aiming to enhance residents’ access to exercise by optimizing the equitable allocation of community fitness resources.
Methods
This study utilizes data from the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS) to construct an analytical framework encompassing residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle, self-reported physical activity, and informal social support—including Relative support, friend support, and neighbor support. First, we examine the direct effect of residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle on their self-reported physical activity. Subsequently, we further analyze the mediating role of informal social support in this process.
Results
The results of this study indicate that: (1) residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive effect on public physical activity; (2) among the three dimensions of informal social support, support from relative, friend, and neighbor all show significant positive associations with physical activity. However, after controlling for support from relative and friend, the independent predictive effect of neighbor support on physical activity is no longer statistically significant; (3) informal social support partially mediates the relationship between perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity. These findings highlight the practical significance of the public’s perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle in promoting physical activity among the public and provide strong empirical support for the implementation of this policy by the Chinese government.
Conclusions
From the perspective of health equity, this study reveals the potential pathway through which the synergy between residents’ perceived accessibility to urban fitness facility planning and informal social support may promote public physical activity. The findings provide empirical evidence that subjective perceptions of community fitness resources, together with informal social support, are associated with physical activity. These results offer valuable insights and potential policy references for developing countries in promoting equitable fitness infrastructure and advancing national health strategies.
Clinical trial number
Not applicable.
Keywords: Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle, Promoting health equity, Physical activity, Informal social support, Mediating effect
Background
Physical activity is widely recognized as a key health behavior that enhances public health and extends lifespan. It not only improves mental health [1] and strengthens physiological functions but also effectively reduces the risk of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes [2, 3]. However, with the acceleration of global economic development and urbanization, significant changes in lifestyles have occurred worldwide, including reduced walking, increased sedentary office work, and prolonged screen time. These trends have substantially suppressed daily physical activity levels and led to a marked increase in sedentary behavior. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that approximately 70% of adults worldwide fail to meet the recommended physical activity guidelines [4]. This widespread inactivity has contributed to the global obesity epidemic and has been significantly associated with rising rates of non-communicable diseases. These trends pose a serious threat to public health [5–7] and constitute an urgent public health challenge. Relevant studies indicate that, compared to inactive individuals, regular physical activity can reduce all-cause mortality risk by 24% in women and 15% in men [8]. This fully highlights the value of physical activity in enhancing health and well-being.
To address health inequities caused by insufficient physical activity, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the “Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World” in 2018. The plan calls for creating more supportive community environments to provide residents with greater opportunities for physical activity in daily life, thereby promoting both individual and population health [9]. In response, the Chinese government has steadily advanced the 15-minute fitness circle policy in recent years. This initiative aims to scientifically plan urban communities so that residents can reach fitness facilities—offering popular physical activities such as brisk walking, square dancing, and ball games—within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from their homes, thereby facilitating public participation in sports [10]. As a key urban health infrastructure measure, the policy promotes health equity by enhancing spatial accessibility and fairness. In recent years, scholars have also increasingly focused on the impact of community environmental factors on residents’ physical activity behaviors [11]. Relevant studies indicate that, as the fundamental spatial unit for residents’ living and daily activities, the community provides a critical material foundation and essential conditions for individuals to engage in physical activity through its fitness environment [12]. Additionally, the accessibility of recreational facilities significantly influences individuals’ physical activity levels during leisure time and affects their motivation to participate in physical activity. Empirical studies have confirmed this effect; for example, Ribeiro et al. found that for older women in Portugal, every additional 100 m in distance to the nearest recreational facility was associated with a 14.2% decrease in time spent on leisure-time physical activity [13]. Lee et al. and others have also shown that in South Korea, the accessibility of sports facilities is associated with adults’ levels of physical activity [14]. Herazo-Beltrán et al. further pointed out that in developing countries, barriers to physical activity are largely constrained by environmental factors, primarily manifested as a lack of fitness facilities and venues, which in turn limits the opportunities and willingness of the public to engage in physical activity [15].
Although the promoting effect of community fitness environments on physical activity has received some attention, current research still has limitations. On the one hand, most empirical evidence comes from developed countries, while related research in China remains limited. In particular, under the context of the 15-minute fitness circle policy, there is a lack of empirical studies examining how public perceptions of fitness facilities influence participation in physical activity. On the other hand, existing studies often overlook the underlying mechanisms through which perceptions community fitness environment influence physical activity. According to socio-ecological theory, health behaviors are shaped not only by the physical environment but also by social relationships and other factors [16]. Based on the public’s perception of the fitness environment, informal social support—such as support from relatives, friends, and neighbors—can further promote individual participation in physical activity, thereby addressing gaps in the existing literature. This study empirically examines the impact of the public’s perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle on their physical activity and further explores the mediating role of informal social support. By focusing on the interaction between urban spatial planning and social support mechanisms, the study not only provides empirical evidence on the implementation effectiveness of China’s 15-minute fitness circle from the perspective of public perception and accessibility, but also offers theoretical insights and policy guidance for developing countries seeking to promote physical activity and health equity through equitable health infrastructure development.
In recent years, to enhance public participation in physical activity, scholars have increasingly shifted their focus from individual-level motivations and behavioral traits to the influence of the built fitness environment on exercise behavior. Existing studies have established that physical activity occurs within a specific physical context [17]. Specifically, attributes such as walkable neighborhoods, access to parks and green spaces, and the safety and quality of infrastructure are positively associated with higher levels of physical activity [18–21]. Fitness facilities, as essential components of public infrastructure, provide the material basis necessary for individuals to engage in regular physical activity. Empirical evidence further supports this association. For instance, Cerin et al. found a significant association between neighborhood walkability and the total transport-related walking time among older adults [22]. Similarly, Sallis et al. reported that the difference in physical activity levels between individuals residing in the most suitable and least suitable activity communities ranged from 68 to 89 min/week. Furthermore, access to fitness facilities plays a critical role in shaping physical activity behavior [23]. Liu et al. found that residents of communities with better destination accessibility were more likely to participate in physical activity [24]. In a longitudinal cohort study from Finland, Halonen et al. found that individuals who moved to areas with fewer sports facilities—characterized by longer distances and lower availability—exhibited a corresponding decline in physical activity levels [25]. Collectively, these findings suggest that a convenient and well-equipped fitness environment in close proximity to one’s residence plays a crucial role in promoting physical activity. However, most of this evidence comes from developed countries, and empirical studies examining how Chinese residents’ perceived accessibility to fitness facilities under the context of the 15-minute fitness circle policy affects physical activity remain limited. Based on above, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1
Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive effect on public participation in physical activity.
The concept of social support initially emerged in the field of psychiatry, where it was developed as a technical term. It was originally defined as information that enables individuals to perceive themselves as cared for, loved, and respected [26]. Since then, social support has been extensively studied as a scientific construct and has gradually evolved into a subject of interdisciplinary inquiry. In the existing literature, social support is commonly classified from a functional perspective into four categories- emotional, instrumental, informational support, and companionship - highlighting its diverse functions in meeting individuals’ psychological and material needs [27, 28]. From the perspective of the source or provider of support, scholars have further distinguished between formal social support and informal social support [29]. Formal social support primarily refers to institutionalized guarantees and services delivered by governments, organizations, and community institutions, such as pension systems and medical security programs [30]. In contrast, informal social support refers to assistance embedded in everyday interpersonal relationships, including material aid, emotional encouragement, and information exchange provided by family members, relatives, friends, and neighbors [31, 32].
Empirical studies have also highlighted the influence of social support on physical activity. Relevant studies have shown that social support has a positive impact on public participation in physical activity [33–35]. For example, Loprinzi and Joyner found that emotional social support significantly increased the frequency of physical activity among older adults [36]. In a grounded theory study, Laird et al. reported that participants perceived social support as enhancing their self-efficacy, thereby motivating and promoting physical activity [37]. Another study from Singapore noted that receiving social support can motivate individuals to overcome internal barriers to participating in physical activities [38]. In addition, social support provides opportunities for observational learning, allowing individuals to learn by watching others [39]. Emotional encouragement from kin and friends is crucial for fostering and maintaining physical activity [40]. These findings underscore the importance of social support in shaping public engagement in physical activity. However, there is no consensus in the empirical literature regarding which specific dimension of social support most strongly influences physical activity behavior [41]. In light of this, and considering data availability and the aims of this study, we focus on examining the effects of different dimensions of informal social support on public participation in physical activity. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2
Informal social support has a significant positive effect on physical activity.
Hypothesis 2a
Relative support has a significant positive effect on physical activity.
Hypothesis 2b
Friend support has a significant positive effect on physical activity.
Hypothesis 2c
Neighbor support has a significant positive effect on physical activity.
According to socio-ecological theory, individual health behaviors are shaped not only by the physical environments but also by personal characteristics and social relationships [16]. In recent years, increasing scholarly attention has been directed toward the interrelationships among fitness environments, social support, and physical activity.
On the one hand, studies exploring the relationship between fitness environments and social support suggest that such environments offer spaces and opportunities for social interaction. For example, Mouratidis found that proximity to parks and well-maintained public spaces was positively associated with increased social interaction [42]. Alidoust et al. emphasized that older adults are more likely to experience social encounters when they leave their homes, highlighting the importance of walkable communities in fostering social life [43]. Similarly, this issue has also been revealed in the findings of recent studies, Guo et al. suggests that communities need to promote social interaction among people through well-designed infrastructure [44].
On the other hand, Research on the relationship between fitness environment, informal social support, and physical activity is relatively limited. Although some studies have noticed the association between fitness environment, social support, and physical activity [45], Van Holle et al. further demonstrated that in walkable communities, neighborly social interactions often extend to outdoor physical activities [46]. However, empirical studies examining whether the perceived accessibility of community fitness facilities influences physical activity through informal social support remain limited. Based on this, a hypothetical model was established to explain the relationships among residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle, informal social support, and physical activity, (Fig. 1). To validate the proposed model. a series of research hypotheses were formulated as follows:
Fig. 1.
Path diagram of mediating effects
Hypothesis 3
Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive effect on informal social support.
Hypothesis 3a
Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive effect on relative support.
Hypothesis 3b
Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive effect on friend support.
Hypothesis 3c
Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive effect on neighbor support.
Hypothesis 4
Informal social support plays a mediating role between residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity.
Hypothesis 4a
Relative support mediates the relationship between residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity.
Hypothesis 4b
Friend support mediates the relationship between residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity.
Hypothesis 4c
Neighbor support mediates the relationship between residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity.
Data and methods
Data source
This study utilizes data from the 2021 wave of the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) to test the proposed hypotheses. The CGSS, as China’s first large-scale, nationally representative, and comprehensive social survey project, is conducted and managed by the National Survey Research Center (NSRC) at Renmin University of China and has a wide influence in the field of social science research. The survey employed a stratified multi-stage probability proportional sampling (PPS) method, the 2021 CGSS collected 8,148 valid responses from individuals aged 18 and above, covering 19 provinces across China. The 2021 survey includes relevant variables related to community fitness environments (i.e., the 15-minute fitness circle), social support, and physical activity. The key variable of this study, the 15-minute fitness circle, is located in Module G of the questionnaire, with 2,717 respondents completing this module. After excluding missing values and invalid responses, a final valid sample of 2,710 respondents was obtained. Of the final sample, 45.17% (1,224) were male and 54.83% (1,486) were female.
Variables
Dependent variable: The dependent variable in this study is physical activity, which captures the frequency with which individuals engage in regular physical activities during leisure time. According to the definition of physical activity proposed by the American scholar Kenyon, it encompasses four dimensions: “cognitive,” “affective inclination,” “direct participation,” and “indirect participation.” In this study, public participation in physical activity is limited to the “direct participation” dimension, that is, actual engagement in physical activities. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked: “In the past year, how often have you regularly participated in physical activities during your free time?” The original response options were coded as follows: 1 = “Every day,” 2 = “Several times a week,” 3 = “Several times a month,” 4 = “Several times a year,” and 5 = “Never.” For analytical convenience, the responses were reverse-coded as follows: 1 = “Never.” 2 = “Several times a year,” 3 = “Several times a month,” 4 = “Several times a week,” 5 = “Every day,” Higher values indicate a greater frequency of physical activity.
Independent variable: The independent variable is individuals’ subjective evaluation of the 15-minute fitness circle. This measure is based on the spatial scope defined by the 15-minute fitness circle policy and is used to assess residents’ subjective perception of the coverage of fitness facilities within a one-kilometer radius (approximately a 15-minute walking distance) around their residence. In Module G of the 2021 CGSS questionnaire, the relevant item asked respondents to indicate their agreement with the following statement: “Within a one-kilometer radius (approximately a 15-minute walk) around my residence, there are suitable places for physical exercise such as jogging or walking.” Respondents were measured on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = “Strongly agree,” 2 = “Agree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Disagree,” and 5 = “Strongly disagree.” For the convenience of statistical analysis, the variable was reverse-coded as follows: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Strongly agree,” with missing values excluded. Higher scores indicate a greater level of recognition of the fitness environment around the respondent’s residence.
Mediating variable: Informal social support serves as the mediating variable and is measured across three dimensions: Relative support, friend support, and neighbor support. The 2021 CGSS questionnaire included the following questions to assess these dimensions: “In the past year, how often have you met with relatives who do not live with you during your leisure time?”, “How often do you meet with your friends?”, and “How often do you socialize with your neighbors?” Each question was rated on a five-point frequency scale, ranging from 1 = “Never,” 2 = “A few times a year or less,” 3 = “Several times a month,” 4 = “Several times a week,” to 5 = “Every day.” Higher scores indicate higher levels of informal social support experienced by the respondent.
Control variables: Demographic variables were included as control variables, including gender, age, level of education, self-rated health status, income, and household registration type (hukou). Gender, level of education, and hukou were coded as binary dummy variables: gender (male = 0, female = 1); education (low education = 0, high education = 1); hukou (rural = 0, urban = 1). Annual income was used to measure income level. For respondents with missing annual income data, the mean of their reported monthly income was used as substitute. Annual income variable was log-transformed to correct for skewness and improve model fit. Health status was treated as a continuous variable (“very unhealthy” = 1, “somewhat unhealthy” = 2, “average” = 3, “somewhat healthy” = 4, “very healthy” = 5), with higher values indicating better self-perceived health.
Statistical methods
First, descriptive statistics of all relevant variables were conducted using Stata 17.0. A correlation matrix was also computed to examine relationships among key variables. Subsequently, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were employed to progressively analyze the relationships among community fitness environment, informal social support (relative, friend, and neighbor support), and physical activity. Finally, the mediating effects of the three dimensions of social support—relative support, friend support, and neighbor support—were analyzed using Model 4 of the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2017) in SPSS 27.0. Bootstrap resampling was applied to estimate total, direct, and indirect effects with corresponding confidence intervals. Effects with confidence intervals not containing zero were considered statistically significant.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the grouped descriptive statistics of respondents’ evaluations of the 15-minute fitness circle. To intuitively illustrate differences in the core variables and demographic control variables across varying perceptions of the fitness environment, the Likert-scale responses were categorized into three groups: the Disagree group (combining “Strongly Disagree” and “Disagree”), the Neutral group (“Neither agree nor disagree”), and the Agree group (combining “Agree” and “Strongly Agree”). In terms of physical activity, the Agree group reported the highest mean score (M = 2.983), compared with M = 2.390 for the Disagree group and M = 2.251 for the Neutral group. Regarding informal social support, mean levels of relative support, friend support, and neighbor support were all highest in the Agree group (relative support: Disagree: M = 2.025; Neutral: M = 1.935; Agree: M = 2.110; friend support: M = 2.167, M = 2.158, and M = 2.312; neighbor support: M = 2.602, M = 2.600, and M = 2.740). For demographic characteristics, the gender distribution reveals that the proportion of females is identical in the Disagree and Neutral groups (both 56.8%) but slightly lower in the Agree group (54.2%). With respect to age, respondents in the Agree group are the youngest on average (M = 51.62), followed by the Neutral group (M = 52.24) and the Disagree group (M = 53.76). Education levels show that the Agree group has the highest proportion of respondents with higher education (22%), compared to 15.3% and 14.8% in the Disagree and Neutral groups. Health status indicates that individuals in the Agree group reported a higher mean score (Disagree: M = 3.294; Neutral: M = 3.362; Agree: M = 3.513). Income level shows that the Neutral group had the highest mean income (Agree M = 8.330, Neutral M = 8.447, Disagree M = 8.007). Finally, in terms of urban-rural distribution, the proportion of urban residents is slightly higher in the Agree group (40.2%) than in the Disagree (37.5%) and Neutral groups (37.9%).
Table 1.
Grouped descriptive statistics of respondents’ evaluations of the 15-Minute fitness circle
| Variable | Disagree group (N = 405) |
Neutral group (N = 243) |
Agree group (N = 2062) |
The full sample (N = 2710) |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (Std. Dev.) |
Min | Max | Mean (Std. Dev.) |
Min | Max | Mean (Std. Dev.) |
Min | Max | Mean (Std. Dev.) |
Min | Max | |
| Physical activity |
2.390 (1.588) |
1 | 5 |
2.251 (1.446) |
1 | 5 |
2.983 (1.613) |
1 | 5 |
2.829 (1.618) |
1 | 5 |
| Relative support |
2.025 (0.789) |
1 | 5 |
1.935 (0.620) |
1 | 5 |
2.110 (0.735) |
1 | 5 |
2.082 (0.735) |
1 | 5 |
| Friend support |
2.167 (1.090) |
1 | 5 |
2.158 (0.992) |
1 | 5 |
2.312 (1.049) |
1 | 5 |
2.276 (1.052) |
1 | 5 |
| Neighbor support |
2.602 (1.427) |
1 | 5 |
2.600 (1.288) |
1 | 5 |
2.740 (1.406) |
1 | 5 |
2.707 (1.400) |
1 | 5 |
| Gender |
0.568 (0.496) |
0 | 1 |
0.568 (0.496) |
0 | 1 |
0.542 (0.498) |
0 | 1 |
0.548 (0.498) |
0 | 1 |
| Age |
53.758 (17.262) |
18 | 90 |
52.243 (19.116) |
18 | 91 |
51.623 (17.475) |
18 | 99 |
51.998 (17.606) |
18 | 99 |
| Edu |
0.153 (0.361) |
0 | 1 |
0.148 (0.356) |
0 | 1 |
0.220 (0.414) |
0 | 1 |
0.203 (0.403) |
0 | 1 |
| Health |
3.294 (1.110) |
1 | 5 |
3.362 (1.068) |
1 | 5 |
3.513 (1.078) |
1 | 5 |
3.467 (1.085) |
1 | 5 |
| Income |
8.007 (4.132) |
0 | 13.39 |
8.447 (3.935) |
0 | 13.59 |
8.330 (4.071) |
0 | 13.71 |
8.292 (4.069) |
0 | 13.71 |
| Urban |
0.375 (0.485) |
0 | 1 |
0.379 (0.486) |
0 | 1 |
0.402 (0.490) |
0 | 1 |
0.396 (0.489) |
0 | 1 |
Correlation analysis
Table 2 reports the results of the correlation analysis among the core variables. Public participation in physical activity is positively correlated with residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle (r = 0.172, p<0.001), relative support (r = 0.153, p<0.001), and friend support (r = 0.232, p<0.001); however, no significant correlation is found with neighbor support (r = 0.005, p>0.05). This indicates that residents’ subjective perception of the 15-minute fitness circle, as well as social support from relatives and friends, is significantly associated with higher levels of public participation in physical activity. Additionally, residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle is positively correlated with all three dimensions of informal social support—relative support (r = 0.051, p<0.01), friend support (r = 0.066, p<0.001), and neighbor support (r = 0.046, p<0.05). Meanwhile, relative support is significantly positively correlated with both friend support (r = 0.421, p < 0.001) and neighbor support (r = 0.106, p < 0.001), and friend support is also significantly positively correlated with neighbor support (r = 0.174, p < 0.001). Overall, the three dimensions of informal social support are significantly interrelated, suggesting that the support residents receive across different social networks exhibits a certain degree of complementarity and consistency.
Table 2.
Correlation analysis
| Variables | Physical activity | 15-minute fitness circle | Relative support | Friend support | Neighbors support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical activity | 1 | ||||
| 15-minute fitness circle | 0.172*** | 1 | |||
| Relative support | 0.153*** | 0.051** | 1 | ||
| Friend support | 0.232*** | 0.066*** | 0.421*** | 1 | |
| Neighbor support | 0.005 | 0.046* | 0.106*** | 0.174*** | 1 |
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
The relationship between residents’ perceived accessibility to 15-minute fitness circles and physical activity
Table 3 presents the main regression models. Model 1 examines the effects of control variables on public physical activity. The results indicate that gender has a significant impact, with males participating in physical activity at a higher level than females (β = -0.156, p < 0.05). Individuals with higher educational attainment exhibit significantly greater levels of physical activity (β = 0.513, p < 0.001), and those with better self-rated health also show significantly higher participation levels (β = 0.146, p < 0.001). Additionally, urban residents demonstrate significantly higher levels of physical activity compared to rural residents (β = 0.590, p < 0.001). In contrast, age and income do not have statistically significant effects on physical activity. Model 2 examines residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle as the independent variable. The results indicate a significant positive correlation with physical activity (β = 0.240, p < 0.001), suggesting that residents who perceive enhanced access to the 15-minute fitness circle tend to report higher levels of physical activity. Therefore, Hypothesis H1 is supported. Models 3, 4, and 5 sequentially introduce the three dimensions of informal social support—relative support, friend support, and neighbor support—to examine their effects on physical activity. The results show that relative support (β = 0.203, p < 0.001), friend support (β = 0.246, p < 0.001), and neighbor support (β = 0.053, p < 0.05) all have significant positive effects on public physical activity. Notably, although the correlation analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between neighbor support and physical activity, the effect becomes statistically significant in the multivariate regression model. This may indicate a potential suppression effect, whereby the independent effect of neighbor support on physical activity is masked by other variables and only be identified through multivariate analysis.
Table 3.
Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle on public physical activity in China
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male) | ||||||
| female | -0.156* | -0.150* | -0.158** | -0.139* | -0.160** | -0.145* |
| (0.061) | (0.061) | (0.060) | (0.060) | (0.061) | (0.060) | |
| Age | -0.000 | -0.001 | 0.001 | 0.002 | -0.001 | 0.003 |
| (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | (0.002) | |
| Education (Low level of education) | ||||||
| high level of education | 0.513*** | 0.479*** | 0.470*** | 0.416*** | 0.504*** | 0.422*** |
| (0.088) | (0.087) | (0.086) | (0.086) | (0.087) | (0.087) | |
| Health | 0.146*** | 0.132*** | 0.120*** | 0.097** | 0.124*** | 0.094** |
| (0.030) | (0.029) | (0.029) | (0.029) | (0.030) | (0.029) | |
| Income | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.008) | |
| Hukou type (rural) | ||||||
| urban | 0.590*** | 0.583*** | 0.547*** | 0.537*** | 0.595*** | 0.527*** |
| (0.066) | (0.065) | (0.065) | (0.065) | (0.065) | (0.065) | |
| 15-minute fitness circle | 0.240*** | 0.235*** | 0.230*** | 0.236*** | 0.228*** | |
| (0.029) | (0.029) | (0.029) | (0.029) | (0.029) | ||
| Relative support | 0.203*** | 0.093* | ||||
| (0.041) | (0.044) | |||||
| Friend support | 0.246*** | 0.219*** | ||||
| (0.030) | (0.033) | |||||
| Neighbor support | 0.053* | 0.006 | ||||
| (0.022) | (0.022) | |||||
| _cons | 2.014*** | 1.182*** | 0.790*** | 0.682** | 1.095*** | 0.548* |
| (0.189) | (0.212) | (0.226) | (0.218) | (0.215) | (0.227) | |
| N | 2710 | 2710 | 2710 | 2710 | 2710 | 2710 |
| pseudo R2 | 0.085 | 0.107 | 0.115 | 0.129 | 0.109 | 0.129 |
Standard errors in parentheses * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Further, Model 6, the full model incorporating all variables, friend support and relative support remain significantly associated with physical activity. The coefficient for friend support remains relatively stable (β = 0.219, p < 0.001), while the coefficient for relative support declines substantially (β = 0.093, p < 0.05). Neighbor support, however, is no longer statistically significant in the full model. These results imply that friend support may partially attenuate the marginal contribution of relative support, thereby exhibiting stronger explanatory power. The non-significance of neighbor support in the full model may indicate functional substitution among different dimensions of informal social support—that is, when individuals receive strong support from friends and relative, the marginal effect of neighbor support on physical activity diminishes. This also suggests that friend support plays a more critical role in promoting physical activity. Furthermore, across Models 1 to 6, the control variables of gender, educational attainment, health status, and household registration consistently show significant effects, whereas age and income remain insignificant. In summary, the results support hypotheses H2a and H2b. Although neighbor support is not statistically significant in the full model (Model 6), its significance in earlier models lends partial support to H2c.
Mediation analysis
Table 4 presents the direct path coefficients in the mediation model. The results indicate that the effect of residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle on relative support is not statistically significant (β = 0.025, Bootstrap 95% CI = [-0.002, 0.051]), as the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval includes zero, indicating a lack of statistical significance. Therefore, Hypothesis H3a is not supported. In contrast, residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle is positively associated with friend support (β = 0.040, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.004, 0.076]) and neighbor support (β = 0.075, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.024, 0.126]), indicating that higher perceived accessibility to the fitness circle corresponds to greater levels of informal social support from friends and neighbors. These findings support Hypotheses H3b and H3c. Regarding the paths from social support to public physical activity, both relative support (β = 0.093, Bootstrap 95%CI = [0.006, 0.179]) and friend support (β = 0.219, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.154, 0.283]) significantly and positively influence physical activity, whereas neighbor support does not have a significant effect (β = 0.007, Bootstrap 95% CI = [-0.037, 0.050]). Additionally, perceived accessibility of the 15-minute fitness circle exerts a significant direct effect on physical activity (β = 0.228, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.172, 0.285]), indicating that even when controlling for informal social support as a mediator, the perceived fitness environment remains an important factor influencing physical activity. These results are consistent with the regression outcomes in Model 5 of Table 3.
Table 4.
The direct path coefficient of the mediation model
| Variables | N | β | SE | BC95%LL | BC95%UL | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15-minute fitness circle vs. Informal social support | ||||||
| 15-minute fitness circle → Relative support | 2710 | 0.025 | 0.014 | -0.002 | 0.051 | 0.066 |
| 15-minute fitness circle → Friend support | 2710 | 0.040 | 0.019 | 0.004 | 0.076 | 0.031 |
| 15-minute fitness circle → Neighbor support | 2710 | 0.075 | 0.026 | 0.024 | 0.126 | 0.004 |
| Informal social support vs. Physical activity | ||||||
| Relative support →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.093 | 0.044 | 0.006 | 0.179 | 0.035 |
| Friend support →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.219 | 0.033 | 0.154 | 0.283 | 0.000 |
| Neighbor support →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.007 | 0.022 | -0.037 | 0.050 | 0.770 |
| 15-minute fitness circle vs. Physical activity | ||||||
| 15-minute fitness circle →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.228 | 0.029 | 0.172 | 0.285 | 0.000 |
The total effect analysis in Table 5 indicates that residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle has a significant positive impact on physical activity (β = 0.2396, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.1824, 0.2968]). The direct effect also reveals a significant positive impact of residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle on physical activity (β = 0.2281, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.1715, 0.2846]). Among the indirect effects, only friend support shows a significant positive mediating effect (β = 0.0087, Bootstrap 95% CI = [0.0005, 0.0184]), whereas relative support (β = 0.0023, Bootstrap 95%CI = [-0.0004, 0.0068]) and neighbor support (β = 0.0005, Bootstrap 95% CI = [-0.0032, 0.0044]) do not reach statistical significance. Therefore, Hypothesis H4b is supported, while Hypotheses H4a and H4c are not. Overall, among the mediation pathways from the 15-minute fitness circle through informal social support to physical activity, only one statistically significant pathway is identified: perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle→ friend support → physical activity. Hence, these findings indicate that friend support plays a mediating role in the relationship between perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity.
Table 5.
The mediating role of informal social support
| Paths | N | Standardized coef | Standard Error | Bootstrap 95%CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| Total effect | |||||
| 15-minute fitness circle →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.2396 | 0.0292 | 0.1824 | 0.2968 |
| Direct effects | |||||
| 15-minute fitness circle →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.2281 | 0.0288 | 0.1715 | 0.2846 |
| Indirect effects (total) | 2710 | 0.0115 | 0.0055 | 0.0013 | 0.0229 |
| 15-minute fitness circle → Relative support →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.0023 | 0.0019 | -0.0004 | 0.0068 |
| 15-minute fitness circle → Friend support →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.0087 | 0.0046 | 0.0005 | 0.0184 |
| 15-minute fitness circle → Neighbor support →Physical activity | 2710 | 0.0005 | 0.0018 | -0.0032 | 0.0044 |
Discussion
Against the backdrop of generally insufficient physical activity levels worldwide, effectively increasing public participation in physical activity has become a critical issue in public health. Based on data from the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS), this study systematically examines the impact of residents’ perceived accessibility to China’s recently implemented the 15-minute fitness circle policy on public physical activity behaviors. It further investigates the underlying mechanisms of this impact. Residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle not only directly promotes physical activity but also indirectly enhances public participation by fostering friend support. This finding reveals the mediating role of informal social support in the relationship between perceived fitness environments and health behaviors, offering significant theoretical and practical implications. Based on the above analysis, several key conclusions are drawn in this study.
First, this study finds that residents’ subjective perceptions of the 15-minute fitness circle are significantly and positively associated with their level of physical activity. This result aligns with previous research on the accessibility of fitness environments [47–50] and on environmental perceptions [51]. It is worth noting that evidence from the United Kingdom suggests that such associations may partly arise because individuals who are more physically active tend to self-select into communities with better fitness facilities [52]. The disparities in access to fitness resources revealed by this pattern reflect deeper socioeconomic inequalities and, to some extent, may further widen existing health disparities [53, 54]. In contrast to this self-selection mechanism, the 15-minute fitness circle reflects a systematic community planning strategy aimed at promoting spatial equity by optimizing the distribution of fitness facilities at the community level. By enhancing the accessibility of these resources, this approach helps reduce disparities linked to socioeconomic status and, by fostering more favorable subjective perceptions of community fitness environments, may help, alleviate the “exercise paradox”—the phenomenon in which individuals acknowledge the health benefits of physical activity yet continue to engage at low levels. From a health equity perspective, equity is achieved when everyone has the opportunity to attain their highest possible level of health without being disadvantaged by their social position or other social determinants [55]. In this regard, strengthening both the perceived accessibility and overall presence of the 15-minute fitness circle functions not only as an effective strategy for encouraging public participation in physical activity but also as a meaningful public initiative for promoting broader societal health equity.
Second, this study found that all three dimensions of informal social support—relative support, friend support, and neighbor support—have significant positive effects on public physical activity. However, after controlling for support from relative and friend, the independent predictive effect of neighbor support on physical activity is no longer statistically significant. This finding enriches previous research that has primarily focused on social support among adolescents or elderly populations [56–60], further revealing the distinctive role of informal social support within adult populations. Particularly noteworthy is that friend support exerted the most significant influence, indicating that peer relationships play the most critical supportive role in adults’ participation in physical activity. This may be closely related to the greater autonomy and selective social engagement characteristic of this group. Meanwhile, the sustained influence of relative support reflects cultural particularities in the Chinese context and resonates with Fei Xiaotong’s concept of the “differential mode of association” [61], highlighting the enduring impact of traditional kinship networks in shaping modern health behaviors. Although neighbor support showed significant effects in single-variable models, its independent influence became non-significant when other types of social support were controlled for, which reflects the reality of weakened community ties amid China’s rapid urbanization. Therefore, the findings suggest that when formulating nationwide fitness promotion policies, policymakers should fully consider the differentiated roles of kin and friend support in shaping individual health behaviors. At the community level, organizing collective and participatory social activities can foster emotional connections and interactions among neighbors, thereby strengthening the practical role of neighbor support in encouraging physical activity.
Finally, this study investigated the mediating effects of the three dimensions of informal social support in the relationship between perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity. The results show that only friend support exhibited a significant mediating effect, while the mediating effects of relative support and neighbor support did not reach statistical significance. It is noteworthy that although relative support and neighbor support both had significant positive effects on physical activity in separate analyses, their effects became non-significant when examined within the overall influence of perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle on physical activity. A plausible explanation for this finding is that individuals in community fitness environments are more inclined to engage in physical activities with friends who share similar interests and exercise preferences. For example, Uijtdewilligen et al. found that participants without exercise partners lack intrinsic motivation to participate in physical activities, whereas those who exercise with friends demonstrate a greater willingness to engage [62]. Similarly, Cho et al. showed that friend support, compared to kin support, more directly satisfies individuals’ basic psychological needs, thereby enhancing intrinsic motivation and attitudes, which in turn indirectly influence exercise intentions [63]. Furthermore, prior research has proposed two theoretical models to explain the mechanisms through which friends influence physical activity behaviors: the “peer contagion model,” wherein individuals’ activity levels are influenced by those of their friends, and the “peer selection model,” wherein individuals seek out friends with similar activity levels as social partners [64]. Overall, our study identifies the key pathways through which perceived fitness environments accessibility and social support influence health behaviors. This synergistic effect between the fitness environment and social support can be understood within a socio-ecological framework, where policy-level interventions (the perceived 15-minute fitness circle) interact with interpersonal factors (friend support) to ultimately impact individual health behaviors.
Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the use of cross-sectional data precludes establishing causal relationships among the variables. Future studies could incorporate longitudinal data to more accurately discern the causal pathways through which residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and social support influence physical activity behavior. Second, due to data constraints, residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute was self-reported, which may introduce individual perceptual biases. Specifically, individuals who engage in physical activity may be more likely to notice and positively evaluate the surrounding facilities. Therefore, future research should consider combining objective measurement methods (e.g., GIS-based accessibility analysis or on-site facility surveys) with self-reported physical activity data to more comprehensively and accurately reveal the complex mechanisms linking fitness environments and health behaviors. Finally, although the measurement of social support in this study included the three primary sources—relative, friends, and neighbors-it did not further differentiate functional dimensions (e.g., emotional support, instrumental support). These omissions somewhat limit a deeper understanding of the mechanisms by which social support affects physical activity. Future research could consider employing more nuanced scales or integrating qualitative methods to deepen insights into the pathways through which informal social support operates, focusing on both interaction processes and support content.
Conclusion
This study, based on data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), examined the relationships among residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle, informal social support, and physical activity. The findings reveal three key conclusions: First, residents’ perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle significantly enhances on public physical activity. Second, among the three dimensions of informal social support, support from relative, friend, and neighbor all show significant positive associations with physical activity. However, after controlling for support from relative and friend, the independent predictive effect of neighbor support on physical activity is no longer statistically significant. Third, friend support serves as a significant mediator in the relationship between perceived accessibility to the 15-minute fitness circle and physical activity. Overall, the results indicate that while the construction of the 15-minute fitness circle provide an essential material foundations for physical activity, residents’ perceptions and the synergistic role of social support are equally indispensable. The findings of this study not only enrich the research on the impact of perceived accessibility of community fitness environments on individual health behaviors but also emphasize the importance of ensuring universality and accessibility of fitness spaces from the perspective of health equity. The results provide theoretical support and practical guidance for other countries in developing community health promotion strategies, optimizing resource allocation, and narrowing social health disparities. Future research could incorporate longitudinal data, experimental designs, or cross-national comparisons to further explore the mechanisms through which fitness environments (including both residents’ perceived accessibility and objective accessibility) and social support influence health behaviors across different populations and social contexts.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge the support given by partner institution that provided the Chinses General Social Survey data. The institution is Renmin University of China. We thank all collaborators for their help in this study.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, Y.S.; data curation, Y.S. and Y.M.; methodology, C.L. and Y.M.; writing—original draft, Y.S.; writing—review and editing, C.L. and Y.M. All authors have read.
Funding
This project is supported by Xi’an Social Science Founding (No. 25TY37).
Data availability
The relevant permission was obtained and all data in the paper are copyright free.
Declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Institutional review board
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all respondents involved in our study.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Rebar AL, Taylor A. Physical activity and mental health; it is more than just a prescription. Ment Health Phys Act. 2017;13:77–82. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lin H, Sardana M, Zhang Y, Liu C, Trinquart L, Benjamin EJ, et al. Association of habitual physical activity with cardiovascular disease risk. Circul Res. 2020;127(10):1253–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Whitaker KM, Pettee Gabriel K, Buman MP, Pereira MA, Jacobs DR Jr, Reis JP, et al. Associations of accelerometer-measured sedentary time and physical activity with prospectively assessed cardiometabolic risk factors: the CARDIA study. J Am Heart Association. 2019;8(1):e010212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/physical-activity#tab=tab_1 (November on 25 August 2024).
- 5.Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, Van Mechelen W, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1311–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kikuchi H, Inoue S, Lee I-M, Odagiri Y, Sawada N, Inoue M, et al. Impact of moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity physical activity on mortality. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(4):715–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lear SA, Hu W, Rangarajan S, Gasevic D, Leong D, Iqbal R, et al. The effect of physical activity on mortality and cardiovascular disease in 130 000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: the PURE study. Lancet. 2017;390(10113):2643–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ji H, Gulati M, Huang TY, Kwan AC, Ouyang D, Ebinger JE, et al. Sex differences in association of physical activity with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;83(8):783–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Organization WH. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. World Health Organization; 2019.
- 10.Circular of the State Council on the Issuance of the National Fitness Program. (2016–2020). Available online: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2016-06/23/content_5084564.htm (September on 12 August 2024).
- 11.Gilbert N, Dudfield O, Bull F. Embracing community sport to promote global health. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2024;12(9):616–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Liu K, Zhang X, Xu D. Research on community fitness spaces under the guidance of the National fitness program. Sustainability. 2023;15(17).
- 13.Ribeiro AI, Mitchell R, Carvalho MS, de Pina MF. Physical activity-friendly neighbourhood among older adults from a medium size urban setting in Southern Europe. Prev Med. 2013;57(5):664–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lee SA, Ju YJ, Lee JE, Hyun IS, Nam JY, Han K-T, et al. The relationship between sports facility accessibility and physical activity among Korean adults. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Herazo-Beltrán Y, Pinillos Y, Vidarte J, Crissien E, Suarez D, García R. Predictors of perceived barriers to physical activity in the general adult population: a cross-sectional study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2017;21(1):44–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zhang Y, Zhang Y-J, Qian Y, Meng Z, Ying X. Correlates of exercise behavior based on Socio-Ecological theoretical model among Chinese urban adults: an empirical study. Behav Sci. 2024;14(9):831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sallis J, Bauman A, Pratt M. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15(4):379–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.McCormack GR, Frehlich L, Blackstaffe A, Turin TC, Doyle-Baker PK. Active and fit Communities. Associations between neighborhood walkability and Health-Related fitness in adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.O’Donoghue G, Perchoux C, Mensah K, Lakerveld J, Nazare JA. A systematic review of correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults aged 18–65 years: A socio-ecological approach. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 20.Pontin FL, Jenneson VL, Morris MA, Clarke GP, Lomax NM. Objectively measuring the association between the built environment and physical activity: a systematic review and reporting framework. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2022;19(1):119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Smith L, Panter J, Ogilvie D. Characteristics of the environment and physical activity in midlife: findings from UK biobank. Prev Med. 2019;118:150–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Cerin E, Nathan A, Van Cauwenberg J, Barnett DW, Barnett A, Environment Co, et al. The neighbourhood physical environment and active travel in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2017;14:1–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sallis JF, Cerin E, Conway TL, Adams MA, Frank LD, Pratt M, et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2207–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Liu Y, Wang X, Zhou S, Wu W. The association between Spatial access to physical activity facilities within home and workplace neighborhoods and time spent on physical activities: evidence from Guangzhou, China. Int J Health Geogr. 2020;19(1):22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Halonen JI, Stenholm S, Kivimäki M, Pentti J, Subramanian S, Kawachi I, et al. Is change in availability of sports facilities associated with change in physical activity? A prospective cohort study. Prev Med. 2015;73:10–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cobb S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosom Med. 1976;38(5):300–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Flannery RB Jr. Social support and psychological trauma: A methodological review. J Trauma Stress. 1990;3(4):593–611. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mindel CH, Wright R Jr, Starrett RA. Informal and formal health and social support systems of black and white elderly: A comparative cost approach. Gerontologist. 1986;26(3):279–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Chi Z, Han H. Urban-rural differences: the impact of social support on the use of multiple healthcare services for older people. Front Public Health. 2022;10:851616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Schug C, Morawa E, Geiser F, Hiebel N, Beschoner P, Jerg-Bretzke L, et al. Social support and optimism as protective factors for mental health among 7765 healthcare workers in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of the VOICE study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Tao Y, Shen Y. The influence of social support on the physical and mental health of the rural elderly. Popul Econ. 2014;3:3–14. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bhuiyan N, Kang JH, Papalia Z, Bopp CM, Bopp M, Mama SK. Assessing the stress-buffering effects of social support for exercise on physical activity, sitting time, and blood lipid profiles. J Am Coll Health. 2022;70(5):1563–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lisboa T, Silva WRd, Silva DAS, Felden ÉPG, Pelegrini A, Lopes JJD, et al. Social support from family and friends for physical activity in adolescence: analysis with structural equation modeling. Cadernos De Saude Publica. 2021;37:e00196819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Zhang Y, Hasibagen, Zhang C. The influence of social support on the physical exercise behavior of college students: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1037518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Loprinzi PD, Joyner C. Source and size of emotional and financial-related social support network on physical activity behavior among older adults. J Phys Activity Health. 2016;13(7):776–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Laird Y, Fawkner S, Niven A. A grounded theory of how social support influences physical activity in adolescent girls. Int J Qualitative Stud Health well-being. 2018;13(1):1435099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Koh YS, Asharani PV, Devi F, Roystonn K, Wang P, Vaingankar JA, et al. A cross-sectional study on the perceived barriers to physical activity and their associations with domain-specific physical activity and sedentary behaviour. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 39.Hess JM, Davis SM. Increasing community-level social support for physical activity in the rural Southwestern united States. J Public Health. 2020;28:703–10. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Chen N, Qiao F. Effect of social support on Muslim women’s sporting activities: mediating effect of psychological adjustment. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1335886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Scarapicchia TMF, Amireault S, Faulkner G, Sabiston CM. Social support and physical activity participation among healthy adults: a systematic review of prospective studies. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;10(1):50–83. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Mouratidis K. Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities. 2021;115:103229. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Alidoust S, Bosman C, Holden G. Talking while walking: an investigation of perceived neighbourhood walkability and its implications for the social life of older people. J Housing Built Environ. 2018;33:133–50. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Guo N, Xia F, Yu S. Enhancing elderly Well-Being: exploring interactions between Neighborhood-Built environment and outdoor activities in old urban area. Buildings. 2024;14(9):2845. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Salinas JJ, McDaniel M, Parra-Medina D. The role of social support and the neighborhood environment on physical activity in low-income, Mexican-American women in South Texas. J Prev Med Public Health. 2018;51(5):234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Van Holle V, Van Cauwenberg J, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Van de Weghe N, Van Dyck D. Interactions between neighborhood social environment and walkability to explain Belgian older adults’ physical activity and sedentary time. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(6):569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Forjuoh SN, Ory MG, Won J, Towne SD Jr, Wang S, Lee C. Determinants of walking among Middle-Aged and older overweight and obese adults: Sociodemographic, Health, and built environmental factors. J Obes. 2017;2017(1):9565430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Gebauer S, Schootman M, Xian H, Xaverius P. Neighborhood built and social environment and meeting physical activity recommendations among mid to older adults with joint pain. Prev Med Rep. 2020;18:101063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Wicker P, Hallmann K, Breuer C. Analyzing the impact of sport infrastructure on sport participation using geo-coded data: evidence from multi-level models. Sport Management Review; 2013.
- 50.Shen J, Fan J, Wu S, Xu X, Fei Y, Liu Z, et al. A study on the impact of a community green space built environment on physical activity in older people from a health perspective: a case study of Qingshan district. Wuhan Sustain. 2025;17(1).
- 51.Moreno-Llamas A, García-Mayor J, De la Cruz-Sánchez E. Urban–rural differences in perceived environmental opportunities for physical activity: a 2002–2017 time-trend analysis in Europe. Health Promot Int. 2023;38(4):daad087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Panter JR, Jones AP. Associations between physical activity, perceptions of the neighbourhood environment and access to facilities in an english City. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(11):1917–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Laddu D, Paluch AE, LaMonte MJ. The role of the built environment in promoting movement and physical activity across the lifespan: implications for public health. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;64:33–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Cereijo L, Gullón P, Cebrecos A, Bilal U, Santacruz JA, Badland H, Franco M. Access to and availability of exercise facilities in madrid: an equity perspective. Int J Health Geogr. 2019;18(1):15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Yancy CW, Johnson HM. Health disparities; is there progress? Am J Prev Cardiol. 2025;101079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 56.Cai X, Qiu S, Luo D, Li R, Liu C, Lu Y, et al. Effects of peer support and mobile application-based walking programme on physical activity and physical function in rural older adults: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Eur Geriatr Med. 2022;13(5):1187–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Du Y, Roberts P, Liu W. Facilitators and barriers of Tai Chi practice in Community-Dwelling older adults: qualitative study. Asian/Pacific Island Nurs J. 2023;7:e42195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Kanamori Y, Ide-Okochi A, Samiso T. Factors related to physical activity among older adults who relocated to a new community after the Kumamoto earthquake: a study from the viewpoint of social capital. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(5):3995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Mendonça G. Farias Júnior JCd. Physical activity and social support in adolescents: analysis of different types and sources of social support. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(18):1942–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Sheridan D, Coffee P, Lavallee D. A systematic review of social support in youth sport. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2014;7(1):198–228. [Google Scholar]
- 61.Fei X, Hamilton GG, Zheng W. From the soil: the foundations of Chinese society. Univ of California; 1992.
- 62.Uijtdewilligen L, Waters CN-H, Aw S, Wong ML, Sia A, Ramiah A, et al. The park prescription study: development of a community-based physical activity intervention for a multi-ethnic Asian population. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0218247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Cho H, Hussain RSB, Kang H-K. The role of social support and its influence on exercise participation: the perspective of self-determination theory and the theory of planned behavior. Social Sci J. 2023;60(4):787–801. [Google Scholar]
- 64.Dishion TJ, Tipsord JM. Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Ann Rev Psychol. 2011;62(1):189–214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The relevant permission was obtained and all data in the paper are copyright free.