Next Article in Journal
Rethinking Sustainable Operations: A Multi-Level Integration of Circularity, Localization, and Digital Resilience in Manufacturing Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Twins and Network Resilience in the EU ETS: Analysing Structural Shifts in Carbon Trading
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156926
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Outdoor Physical Activity in the Service of Sustainable Development and One Health: The Role of Physical Activity in Shaping Pro-Social and Pro-Environmental Attitudes

by
Elżbieta Biernat
1,* and
Monika Piątkowska
2
1
Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland
2
Faculty of Physical Education, Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, 00-968 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6926; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156926
Submission received: 2 July 2025 / Revised: 23 July 2025 / Accepted: 27 July 2025 / Published: 30 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: This study explores the potential of outdoor physical activity (OPA) to support physical, mental, and social health, while contributing to the One Health strategy. Methods: Based on Eurobarometer 97.3 data, 570 physically active individuals were compared by activity setting using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests with odds ratios, and the Mann–Whitney U test. Results: The analysis reveals that OPA is often driven by personal beliefs and a strong connection to nature, yet participants may overlook their environmental and social impact. Conclusions: The findings underscore the need for intersectoral cooperation and civic education to realise OPA’s role in promoting health, inclusion, and sustainability.

1. Introduction

Contemporary civilisational challenges, such as climate change, diseases transmitted from animals to humans, biodiversity loss (the disappearance of species, genetic and ecosystem diversity on Earth) and public health crises (climate and environmental, healthcare system, pandemics and epidemics of infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, etc.) point to the need for an integrated approach to health [1].
The One Health concept, which assumes a close interdependence between human, animal, and environmental health, is becoming increasingly important in scientific research, health policy, social education, and the economy [1,2]. In this context, the role of physical activity (PA), especially outdoor physical activity (OPA), is growing as a tool to support human health [3,4,5] and well-being [6,7], fostering social bonds and integration with the local community [8,9], supporting the natural environment [10] and the economy [11,12]. The effects of participating in this type of activity promote holistic health (and, consequently, the development of society and the economy) and often go beyond the benefits of PA in an unnatural environment [11]. Recent research on active mobility confirms that everyday forms of outdoor movement, such as walking and cycling, contribute simultaneously to health, sustainability, and pro-environmental behaviour, aligning with the One Health perspective [13,14]. There is growing evidence of the benefits of being in nature or in contact with the natural environment [15,16]. Compared to indoor exercise, OPA has a more beneficial effect on affective value and enjoyment [7], is associated with a greater sense of revitalisation and positive engagement, a decrease in tension, confusion, anger, and depression, and increased energy [17]. In addition, those involved in OPA report greater enjoyment and satisfaction from outdoor activities and declare a greater intention to repeat PA at a later date [18,19]. Another important factor is the accessibility of most outdoor sports, as they are free at the place of use and have few restrictions on participation [20]. In the context of urbanisation, insufficient levels of PA, sedentary lifestyles, and the growing disconnect between people and the natural environment, the question arises as to whether and how OPA can be part of the solution for implementing the One Health strategy.
OPA refers to any form of exercise performed outdoors, in close connection with nature and the landscape, i.e., in contact with natural elements (e.g., forest, park, mountain, beach, water, rural and urban green areas), rather than with facilities [3]. However, the natural environment may be minimally modified by humans (it does not have to be wild nature). This means that OPA can refer to activities that have their roots in the natural environment but take place in/on artificial structures that recreate the natural environment. In general, OPA can be recreational, adventurous, or sporting in nature [21]. It can include organised forms (e.g., parkrun, Nordic walking, fitness classes in the park) and unorganised forms (e.g., walking, cycling, swimming in a lake, climbing, gardening). However, it is physically demanding (at least to a minimum extent), requires adaptability [17], and is based on human strength or natural elements [3]. This does not exclude the use of certain types of equipment, such as surfboards, bicycles, or skis. Regardless of how it is undertaken, a common feature of OPA participants is the search for experiences, emphasising the importance of the environment in which they exercise, as well as the expected results in terms of well-being and development [22]. Muller et al. [22] state that ‘OPA are a heterogeneous subset of physical pursuits of variable intensities which place an emphasis on their alternative routes to experiential, physiological, and psychological well-being outcomes. Such outcomes are primarily facilitated via the changeable, connective, and stimulating nature of the outdoor environs in which they take place’. BOSS project recognises that OPA does not include activities that, although they take place outdoors (not in a natural environment), require a specific playing field or route (e.g., transport activities) [23]. Similarly, it does not include forms that do not require physical effort (such as camping or bird watching), are motorised (e.g., motocross), or focus solely on an object (e.g., kite flying).
The existing literature provides ample evidence of the link between OPA and physical [24] and mental health [24,25] and well-being [17]. It also points to the correlation between OPA and education and lifelong learning [26,27], active citizenship [28], crime reduction [29], reduction of antisocial behaviour [24,28], social integration [30,31], and improved social cohesion [15,32]. Finally, it demonstrates a positive relationship with volunteering [15] and an understanding of the natural environment and human dependence on it [3,30]. Despite this, researchers point to a gap in the evidence base. Namely, most studies focus on the relationship between OPA and mental and physical health benefits, as well as education and lifelong learning [23]. However, there is a lack of comprehensive assessment of the public health benefits of improved air quality, climate, physical activity, and healthier lifestyles, and/or the social benefits of access to nature [15]. There is a lack of data and agreed methodology for measuring the social impact of OPA in economic terms (including links to socio-economic policy) [23]. The impact on civic engagement and crime reduction is not well evidenced and is mainly based on reports and qualitative assessments from the field [3]. Furthermore, there is still a lack of direct research linking outdoor physical activity to the One Health approach [33]. It is important to note that many of these reported benefits are based on correlational rather than causal evidence. While OPA is associated with improved health and pro-environmental attitudes, the direction and mechanism of these relationships often remain unclear. Further evidence is therefore needed, especially evidence that will allow for a better understanding of the multidimensional links, particularly from a European perspective [23].
This study analysed, based on Eurobarometer surveys (2022), the population of adult Poles who engage in outdoor physical activity and other forms of physical activity not taking place outdoors, in the context of their attitudes towards sustainable development and the One Health approach. According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), human behavioural intentions (and subsequent actions) are determined by attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioural control [34]. The attitudes and norms shared among members of OPA can influence their engagement in health, environmental, and social initiatives aligned with the principles of One Health. Therefore, the study examined whether the factors motivating physical activity differ between the group of people who engage in outdoor physical activity and the group of people who do not engage in outdoor activities, and whether the personal attitudes and awareness of representatives of these groups regarding environmental and social activities differ. This was based on the assumptions of the ecological model of health [35]—an approach that emphasises how an individual’s health is shaped by a complex network of interactions between individual, social, environmental, and political factors. We assume that civic engagement in OPA can operate on many levels: individual (e.g., health awareness), social (local communities), and political (influence on EU health and environmental policy)—reflecting the essence of the One Health concept. This perspective allows us to understand how the actions of those involved in OPA fit into the broader system of interdependencies between human health and environmental health.
Because this analysis addresses the multidimensional relationship between those involved in PA (outdoor vs. non-outdoor) and their attitudes toward environmental protection, concern for social cohesion, community resilience, and support for sustainability-oriented political priorities, it can empirically develop and operationalise the One Health assumptions. Although this study focuses primarily on the human dimension, the One Health concept inherently emphasises the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health. The connection between participation in OPA and biodiversity conservation is not always direct or immediately apparent. However, certain forms of civic engagement—such as environmental volunteering, physical activity in natural settings, or support for local ecological initiatives—may indirectly contribute to biodiversity protection and environmental sustainability. These contributions can occur through the promotion of pro-environmental values, a reduction in car dependency, and increased public support for green urban infrastructure. However, these links are still emerging and should be further developed in future research. More broadly, the effects of this synergistic relationship can support—through systemic risk management, prevention, and cross-sector collaboration—the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals [36]. Finally, the results of this study may be relevant to economic sectors such as the leisure and tourism industry, sports and recreation companies, and health and well-being services.
This study goes beyond existing research by empirically examining the associations between outdoor physical activity and pro-social as well as pro-environmental attitudes within the One Health framework. By focusing on a nationally representative Polish sample and linking physical activity settings with civic and environmental values, it offers a novel perspective on how lifestyle behaviours align with sustainability and health-related policy priorities.
To facilitate understanding of the study’s scope and logical flow, the structure of the article is outlined below. The introduction has provided the theoretical background and defined the key concepts, including the link between OPA and the One Health strategy. Section 2 presents the dataset, sample, and analytical procedures. Section 3 reports the empirical findings regarding motivations, environmental awareness, and civic engagement. Section 4 offers a critical discussion of the results in light of the existing literature. Section 5 concludes with policy implications, and Section 6 discusses the study’s limitations and future research directions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data

The analysis is based on publicly available data from Eurobarometer 97.3, a cross-sectional study conducted from 19 April 2022 to 16 May 2022 across the 27 EU member countries [37]. The study’s three modules—QA ‘European Parliament Spring Survey,’ QB ‘Sport and Physical Activity,’ and QC ‘Key Challenges of our Times—the EU in 2022′—enabled the analysis of both environmental and social dimensions of citizen engagement.
With regard to environmental action, the analysis focused on (1) respondents’ personal values and (2) their expectations regarding EU policy priorities, particularly the role of the European Parliament. Relevant questions assessed whether climate action was perceived as contributing to improved health and well-being, reducing future environmental costs, fostering innovation, or posing a threat to the economy. It also examined whether physically active individuals were more likely to expect the EP to prioritise climate and agricultural policies.
In terms of the social dimension, the study explored differences between physically active outdoor participants (OPAs) and others with respect to their attitudes towards volunteering in sport and their support for values such as combating poverty and social exclusion, providing humanitarian and development aid, countering terrorism and organised crime, and promoting gender equality, inclusion, and diversity.
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences approved the study (approval nr. KEwN/60/2014).

2.2. Sample

From a representative sample of the Polish population (n = 1013), a subgroup of 570 physically active respondents was selected. These individuals declared that they had ever engaged in physical activity (PA) or sport, including activities such as swimming, training in a fitness centre or sports club, or running in a park, as well as other forms of PA such as cycling for transportation, dancing, or gardening.
For the purposes of this study, respondents were classified into two groups based on the question regarding the setting of their engagement, the study participants were divided into two groups: those who engage in physical activity or sport in outdoor settings (i.e., in a park) and all other participants (i.e., at home, on the way between home and school, work, or shops, at a health or fitness centre, at a sport club, at work, at a sport centre, at school or university or elsewhere). Respondents who reported engaging in both outdoor and non-outdoor PA were categorised in the outdoor group, as our aim was to capture the specific influence of outdoor contexts, regardless of whether participants also engaged in indoor activity.
The sample was predominantly female (59.5%; n = 339), with men comprising 40.5% (n = 231). Most participants lived in rural or small-town areas (46.1%), followed by those in medium-sized cities (31.9%) and large cities (21.9%). The majority were employed (55.6%), while 37.0% were unemployed and 7.4% self-employed.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The analytical procedures included (1) descriptive statistics using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations (SDs); (2) chi-square (χ2) tests of independence between the variables under study, with the strength of associations assessed using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); and (3) the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test for ordinal variables (e.g., self-assessed attention to the environmental impact of physical activity on a 1–6 scale). The interpretation of results focused on identifying significant differences between outdoor physically active (OPA) and non-outdoor physically active participants in terms of their motivations, environmental attitudes, and civic engagement. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM® SPSS® version 29 and JASP version 0.19.3. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

In the first stage of the analysis, the motivators for engaging in sport or PA were compared between individuals who train in outdoor and non-outdoor settings to identify which factors play a key role depending on the exercise environment (Table 1). The analysis revealed that fitness and physical performance were the most frequently reported motivators for engaging in OPA participants, with 94.2% indicating it as a reason, compared to 64.3% in the non-outdoor group. This difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 77.37; p < 0.0001), and the odds of reporting fitness and performance as a motivator were 9.03 times higher among OPA participants than those engaging in non-outdoor settings (OR = 9.03; 95% CI: 5.10–15.97). Health was another highly endorsed motivator, with 82.2% of OPA participants citing it, compared to 55.6% of the non-outdoor group (χ2 = 45.78; p < 0.0001). The likelihood of identifying health as a motivator was 3.69 times higher for those active in OPA settings (95% CI: 2.50–5.45). Psychological benefits were also more commonly cited by OPA participants (63.3%) than non-outdoor participants (48.2%), a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 13.0; p < 0.0001), with outdoor exercisers being 1.85 times more likely to report this motivator (95% CI: 1.20–2.59). In contrast, physical appearance and social interaction did not significantly differ between the two groups. The proportions reporting physical appearance as a motivator were similar (18.1%—OPA vs. 17.4%—PA in non-outdoor settings, OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.69–1.62; n.s.), as were those citing social interaction (respectively, 16.6% vs. 14.8%, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 0.13–1.80; n.s.). Interestingly, personal growth was more frequently reported by participants in non-outdoor settings (11.9%) compared to only 3.9% of OPA participants, and this difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 12.06; p < 0.0001). The odds of reporting personal growth as a motivator were significantly lower among OPA participants (OR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.14–0.61).
In the subsequent stage of the analysis, we investigated whether engagement in OPA is associated with a stronger concern for the natural environment. This was assessed through two key indicators. First, we examined responses to the question on priority values for the European Parliament, focusing specifically on the selection of action against climate change and agricultural policy, which both reflect environmental priorities at the policy level.
The findings revealed mixed evidence regarding the association between OPA and pro-environmental concern. As noted, while individuals engaging in OPA were more likely to select action against climate change as a policy priority (14.7%) compared to those not involved in outdoor activity (10.0%), the difference was not statistically significant (OR = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.88–2.42). Similarly, no meaningful difference was observed regarding the agricultural policy priority (OR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.42–2.11).
A deeper insight was provided through participants’ perceptions of the impacts of climate action, which served as more personalised indicators of environmental awareness. High agreement was observed with the statement that climate action can help improve personal health and well-being, with 92.3% of OPA and 91.6% of non-outdoor participants endorsing this view (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.59–2.00; p = n.s.). Finally, regarding the belief that climate action can help reduce future ecological costs, both groups expressed high levels of agreement (91.9% OPA vs. 90.4% non-outdoor), with no significant difference (OR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.67–2.17; p = n.s.). Similarly, a large majority in both groups agreed that tackling climate change can create new opportunities for innovation, investment, and jobs, with 90.7% of OPA and 89.7% of non-outdoor participants expressing agreement. The difference was not statistically significant (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.64–1.96; p = n.s.). One statistically significant difference emerged in the perception that climate action could harm the economy. This belief was held by 43.2% of OPA participants, compared to only 27.0% of those in non-outdoor settings. The difference was significant (χ2 = 18.29; p < 0.0001), and the odds of agreeing with this statement were significantly lower in the non-outdoor group (OR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.34–0.69).
Additionally, we examined whether there were differences between OPA and non-outdoor participants in terms of how much attention they pay to the environmental impact of sport or physical activity. Using a 6-point scale (from 1 = ‘not paying attention at all’ to 6 = ‘paying a lot of attention’), participants rated their level of environmental awareness related to their engagement in sport. The Mann–Whitney U test showed no statistically significant difference in environmental awareness between individuals engaging in sport in OPA and those who did not mention such settings (U = 37,895.5, Z = −1.24, p = 0.213). The average score for the OPA group was slightly lower (M = 3.53, SD = 1.56) than for the non-outdoor group (M = 3.68, SD = 1.48), but this difference did not reach statistical significance.
In the final stage of the analysis, we examined whether outdoor physical activity fosters social bonding or integration with the local community. As indicators of this dimension, we included factors such as volunteering in sport and the prioritisation of values to be defended by the European Parliament, with a particular focus on those reflecting solidarity, social cohesion, and civic engagement. The comparison of citizens’ engagement in volunteering in sport revealed no statistically significant difference between OPA and non-outdoor participants. Among those who engaged in OPA, 7.3% reported that they currently volunteer or intend to engage in volunteering related to sport, compared to 6.4% among non-outdoor participants. The analysis of priority values that respondents believe the European Parliament should defend revealed most notably gender equality, inclusion, and diversity were significantly less likely to be selected by OPA participants (1.2%) compared to those active in non-outdoor settings (5.5%). This difference was statistically significant (χ2 = 7.75; p = 0.005), with OPA participants showing 80% lower odds of selecting this value as a priority (OR = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06–0.70). In contrast, the other values assessed, including the fight against poverty and social exclusion, humanitarian aid and development assistance, and the fight against terrorism and organised crime, did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all).

4. Discussion

This study assumes that participation in OPA is associated with benefits (greater than those related to PA in non-outdoor settings) that may support the One Health strategy. The results revealed several promising effects in this regard, stemming from the personal values of Poles engaging in OPA.

4.1. Motivations and Values in OPA: Health, Nature, and Personal Growth

The most frequently reported motivations for undertaking OPA were maintaining or improving physical fitness (over nine times more likely than in non-outdoor PA), health (almost four times), and psychological well-being (nearly twice as likely). These findings point to a high level of health awareness and internalisation of health-related values among OPA participants, while also confirming the potential of outdoor activity as a tool for holistic health enhancement [38]. In this study, OPA was defined as physical activity conducted in open-air settings, encompassing both natural environments (e.g., parks, forests) and artificial outdoor areas that simulate natural conditions (e.g., urban green gyms). However, we acknowledge that the distinction between natural and artificial environments is fluid and may be shaped by cultural and individual perceptions. This definitional ambiguity, as highlighted in recent research on green exercise and outdoor activity contexts, poses conceptual challenges that merit further theoretical and empirical exploration [19,39].
The fact that participation in OPA is associated with improved health and psychological benefits is supported by the existing literature. Studies from Norway and other countries suggest that health preservation is a key motivator and that outdoor PA improves both physical and psychological markers [40,41,42]. It is linked to better cardiovascular function, reduced blood pressure and heart rate, and lowers the risk of serious conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers [26,30,36,43,44]. Among older adults, it also supports vitamin D synthesis and may help prevent myopia and multiple sclerosis [3,45].
The psychological benefits of exercising in natural environments are also well documented. It has been shown that OPA positively influences overall mental health and emotional stability [3,10,30], as well as well-being, quality of life, happiness, and life satisfaction [8,46]. It also contributes to the reduction of tension, confusion, and anger [17]. Moreover, it has been proven to alleviate negative affective states such as stress, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and neuroticism [3,24,30]. It should be emphasised that these effects go beyond the benefits typically associated with PA performed in non-natural environments [3,17].
In contrast, personal development was more often cited as a motivator by individuals exercising in non-outdoor settings (OR = 0.30). According to Calogiuri and Elliott’s model [47], motivational profiles vary by activity type: sport-based PA focuses on pleasure and mastery; gym activities emphasise appearance and social goals; and OPA relates more to health and functionality. Self-determination theory supports this distinction, showing that developmental motives are stronger in structured, feedback-rich environments such as gyms or coached training [48,49]. Thus, OPA participants may associate development more with discipline and physical performance than with cognitive or personal growth.
Nonetheless, OPA fosters intensive contact with nature, others, and oneself [50], which can support intrapersonal development across emotional, cognitive, and social domains [3,8,30]. Outdoor sports programmes have been shown to improve academic performance and motivation [8,28,30], attention [51,52], memory [53], brain structure, function and connectivity, intellectual flexibility, and problem-solving skills [27]. Cognitive aspects are also important in the context of healthy ageing and the prevention of cognitive decline [26,27]. Despite this, those who undertake OPA do not associate their activity with personal development. This indicates that they do not perceive nature as an environment for achieving goals, but rather as a pleasant context. They focus more on external factors, such as the natural environment, rather than internal factors, such as personal development [47]. And although they do participate in this environment on a cognitive and emotional level, they do not always consciously recognise and declare this fact. In view of the above, it seems that in the context of mental and social health, the importance of personal development, including, for example, such competences as emotional self-regulation and self-awareness (through reflection and calmness), mental resilience, and a balanced lifestyle, should be more strongly emphasised in programmes implementing OPA for One Health purposes.
When considering the phenomenon of personal development being less frequently perceived as a goal of undertaking OPA, we also take into account the fact that respondents may have difficulty defining what personal development is. As shown in the report Poles and personal development [54], this applies to every third respondent. The most common definitions of personal development are acquiring new skills (23%), pursuing dreams and goals (17%), and caring for relationships with other people and family (12% each).
Finally, the low salience of personal development might reflect the limitations of the Eurobarometer’s general questions, which address all active individuals regardless of context. A more targeted approach might reveal different motives. The same issue applies to questions about attention to the environmental impact of sport. Within a diverse OPA group, variation in training location and environmental awareness may obscure statistical significance. This suggests a need for more nuanced research on the causal links between OPA and pro-environmental behaviours, which, as the BOSS project notes, remain insufficiently proven [23].

4.2. OPA and Climate Responsibility: The Gap Between Beliefs and Practice

Another issue is the apparent indifference of Poles involved in OPA to the impact of sport on the environment (as well as those involved in non-outdoor PA). Only 10.4% of them say that they ‘pay close attention’ to this relationship (7.7% in the non-outdoor group). Lee et al. [55] argue that most high-income countries are economically neoliberal (characterised by consumerism and higher air pollution emissions for economic gain). And while they do have higher PA scores, they show less responsibility for the climate. Meanwhile, Brook [56] emphasises the importance of the ‘reasonable person model’, which links access to the natural environment with ‘more reasonable’ behaviour (i.e., positive actions and understanding). PA in the natural environment should promote environmental awareness [30,53]. Typically, people who are active in the natural environment have a greater connection to nature [53] and are more likely to engage in environmental protection activities such as waste reduction, choosing renewable energy sources, and promoting sustainable transport [57]. In fact, outdoor sports—due to their ability to go beyond the mere transfer of knowledge (learning through experience) [29]—are seen as an important tool for environmental education, allowing for a better understanding of the complex construct of PA and the natural environment [58].
This signals the need for environmental education in Polish society (especially among those who exercise in natural environments) and for the design of OPA programmes in such a way that they combine sport with environmental reflection. It is necessary to emphasise the impact that physical activity can have on the environment and the health of the ecosystem, e.g., the environmental footprint (carbon, water, ecological, material) of various sports activities. Without clear messages and educational activities, without broader support from politicians and practitioners, it is difficult to expect visible concern for the environment, let alone long-term changes in attitudes [10]. It is also difficult to consciously minimise the negative impact of OPA on nature (avoiding littering, noise, disturbance of fauna, and transport to training, choosing routes that are less harmful to nature, exercising according to the ‘leave no trace’ principle)—in line with the idea of the interdependence of human health and ecosystems. It should be noted that the public debate is dominated by the narrative of the health benefits of OPA. Environmental aspects, including interference with nature, are not given much attention.
Assuming that insight into the personal beliefs of physically active Poles (especially those undertaking PA) may shed some light on this issue, their opinions on how climate action can help (or harm) were examined. The analysis showed that, apart from one case of adverse impact on the economy, there were no significant differences in the responses of people participating in OPA and PA in non-outdoor settings. In the opinion of the respondents, such actions can primarily contribute to improving personal health and well-being (92.3% and 91.6%, respectively), followed by reducing future environmental costs (91.9% and 90.4%, respectively) and creating new opportunities for innovation, investment, and jobs (90.7% and 89.7%, respectively). It should be emphasised that the level of agreement with these statements was very high in both groups. This may indicate a similar high level of climate sensitivity across the entire population of Poles who exercise.
Nevertheless, the lack of a clear difference in this regard between outdoor and non-outdoor exercisers may be somewhat surprising. The literature to date shows that participants who are more experienced in outdoor activities have a stronger and more clearly defined empathetic connection with nature, exhibit better social behaviour, and have higher moral standards [57]. According to the New Economics Foundation [59], interaction with the natural environment can lead to an increased sense of environmental stewardship. Bácsné-Bába et al. [60] believe that the greater the individual commitment to sustainable development, the more often green spaces are used for exercise. It is not without significance that such activity in open spaces (in parks, forests, mountains, by the water) is strongly dependent on the climate. Rising temperatures (especially in summer), deteriorating air quality (smog, forest fires), and an increased number of extreme weather events (heat waves, storms, droughts) can make it difficult [61]. Therefore, greater concern for climate issues and the effects of actions taken in this regard would seem natural for this group of people. We assume that the lack of differences stems from the fact that Poles perceive climate benefits as universal values. Innovation, public health, jobs, cost reduction—these are systemic effects and solutions that, firstly, are felt by everyone (regardless of lifestyle or type of PA undertaken) and, secondly, are within the remit of governments, companies, and technology. Such universal values blur the differences between groups and, above all, shift responsibility to ‘someone/something outside’ (which cannot be said about organising one’s own PA) [62]. As a result, identifying with a healthy lifestyle does not necessarily correlate with climate responsibility. This is confirmed by Silva et al. [63], proving a weak to moderate negative correlation between assessments of organised sport and physical activity, community and environment, and government investments and strategies, grades showed weak to moderate negative correlations with SDG 13 (Climate action) [55].
This paradox is especially evident in our findings: although OPA participants often exercise for health (56%) and value climate action (90%), only a small fraction reflect on their activity’s environmental consequences (10%). This indicates a disconnect between values and behaviour, pointing to a gap in the practical understanding of One Health. To bridge this gap, OPA programmes should more explicitly link personal health with ecological responsibility.
An interesting finding is that people who participate in OPA are more likely (OR = 0.49) than those who do not exercise outdoors (43.2% vs. 27.0%) to believe that climate action can harm the economy. As research shows [64,65], people involved in this form of activity are often those with higher education, better access to green spaces, and greater economic capital. Such a group may better understand the costs of climate policies (e.g., higher energy prices, emissions taxes, restrictions on businesses) and is more likely to perceive the economic risks to the economy [66].

4.3. Why They Participate: Exploring the Inner Drivers of OPA Volunteers

When analysing other personal attitudes of respondents, declarations of participation (or intention to participate) in sports volunteering were taken into account. It was assumed that the organisation of sporting events (including, for example, ‘eco-events’ and events promoting the ‘leave no trace’ principle) supports the creation of a sustainable space for PA and generally encourages the community to engage in it, which promotes physical, mental, and social health [62]. As such, volunteering can serve not only sport, but also the values of public health and environmental awareness, i.e., the values of One Health [67,68]. This position is indirectly supported by O’Brien et al. [69], who argue that volunteers involved in nature conservation activities share a spiritual connection with nature. Kuipers et al. [15] add that volunteering and local participation in nature can increase social support and reduce social isolation, and that the natural environment can provide learning opportunities, promote personal development and self-esteem, and strengthen social interactions and bonds. These results show that in both groups analysed, i.e., those undertaking OPA and those participating in PA in non-outdoor settings, the percentages of volunteers are not high (7.3% and 6.4%, respectively). However, it should also be noted that the proportion of volunteers in Polish society has increased significantly compared to previous years (2017—2.8%; 2013—2.6%) [62]. The analysis did not show any significant differences between the studied groups of physically active Poles in terms of volunteering. Perhaps, as other researchers argue [70,71], sport in general (regardless of its form) builds social networks, which stimulates this type of activity. However, Brook [56] believes that attitudes towards volunteering vary from country to country. In Western countries, it has a long tradition, and a positive attitude towards it is evident. In post-communist countries, attitudes are mostly negative, but they are slowly changing, as in Poland. This can be interpreted as a positive signal for the potential use of sports volunteering as a tool for effectively implementing the One Health principle. Volunteering that integrates the areas of health, the environment, and social relations, creating a platform for environmental education and the promotion of a healthy lifestyle [72], can be particularly useful.

4.4. From Civic Engagement in OPA to Policy Awareness for One Health

An analysis of the attitudes of Poles involved in OPA did not show that they were more interested in the social and environmental policies of the European Union than those practising in non-outdoor settings. Expectations regarding the activities of the European Parliament—such as (1) combating poverty and social exclusion, (2) terrorism and organised crime, (3) humanitarian and development aid, (4) sustainable agricultural policy, and (5) combating climate change—were similar in both groups. Furthermore, a small percentage of those exercising in natural environments responded to these questions (1.2–3.5%), which may indicate a low level of civic engagement. This is worrying, given that social attitudes and engagement are important for promoting a model of health based not only on biological and ecological balance but also on key elements of collective resilience and public well-being, such as equality, diversity, and social cohesion. According to Skrok et al. [73], connections, intergroup solidarity, and shared resources support the enforcement and strengthening of social norms that promote health and provide tangible, practical support. Therefore, people with a higher sense of coherence exhibit a more health-promoting lifestyle. By offering space for social contact and interaction, OPA can act as a ‘third place’ (outside of home and work) [74] that can successfully play an important role in shaping active citizenship [75,76]. This can be achieved by supporting local communities, building identity and a sense of pride, and strengthening family and interpersonal bonds [77,78]. ‘Third places’ can also be a space where values related to civic engagement are put into practice as part of public health activities/practices (e.g., reduction in social tensions, violence [32], aggression [79], safety [80]). This is confirmed by parkour and skateboarding, which successfully attract young people and engage various communities in activities (by creating local groups, sharing urban space, performing and educational activities, participating in social projects), stimulate creativity (through the creative use of space) and promote a healthy lifestyle in a new and meaningful way (informal, autonomous, integrating movement, creativity and social bonding) [81]. Of course, anything is possible as long as participants are aware of the interconnections between health, the environment, and the community, and understand that their individual choices have a collective and systemic dimension. Unfortunately, the results of this study indicate a lack of consistency in the system of building an integrated approach to health, bringing together all One Health spaces. It can therefore be concluded that the role of OPA in this context (as a factor creating civic engagement that strengthens cohesion and collective resilience [59,82]) should be better adapted.
An interesting phenomenon, however, is that OPA participants were 80% less likely to expect PE to prioritise gender equality, integration, and diversity measures than those participating in PA in non-outdoor settings. This finding should be interpreted with caution, as it may reflect a complex interplay of contextual, demographic, and cultural factors rather than clear ideological positions. The lower support for gender equality measures among OPA participants does not necessarily indicate a lack of social sensitivity, but may be shaped by differences in group composition, activity settings, or other unmeasured variables. PA carried out in non-outdoor environments (often organised, such as gyms, sports clubs, group fitness classes) takes place in more socially diverse spaces [83]. Contact with people from different backgrounds, cultures, and orientations can strengthen social sensitivity and openness to equality and integration issues. Representatives of this group are also more often associated with urban, academic, or progressive environments [84], which may foster greater acceptance of diversity and awareness of equality and integration issues. On the other hand, OPA (often individual or carried out in homogeneous groups [9]) promotes values such as autonomy, independence, and contact with nature [85]. Incidentally, only 16.6% of our respondents participate in OPA for social interaction. Those who do so are less likely to have direct contact with minority groups [9], which may weaken empathy and sensitivity to their needs. As a result, they are less likely to see the need for integration, identity, and social intervention policies. Putnam [86] explains that more integrated groups (e.g., class, local) are less likely to feel the need for greater inclusiveness because they are ‘at the centre’ of the community. It is very likely that, not feeling the direct effects of exclusion, they have lower social sensitivity. Another noteworthy fact is that those involved in OPA are more likely to represent more conservative or pragmatic views. Andrews and Silk [87] refer to the phenomenon of ‘fit neoliberalism’ prevalent among physically active people, i.e., the rejection of equality or integration policies due to a belief in the possibilities of individual effort and self-efficacy. OPA, which is part of their lifestyle (based on independence and self-sufficiency), may correlate with a reluctance to accept calls for cultural intervention. Such a mechanism may disrupt the holistic concept of One Health. It is worth remembering that a sustainable environment cannot be built at the expense of social exclusion, that integration and diversity build social resilience and community well-being [32], and that the fight against social inequalities benefits public health.

5. Conclusions

Unlike previous studies that focused primarily on health or psychological benefits of outdoor physical activity, this study reveals potential contradictions and gaps in environmental and social responsibility among OPA participants. It provides new insights into the selective internalisation of One Health values and highlights the need for more integrated public health and sustainability education strategies.
This study proves that OPA is an important element of a healthy lifestyle—it supports physical and mental well-being as well as physical fitness and performance. It can therefore contribute to the achievement of the One Health strategy and SDGs, sustainable development goals. Motivations related to OPA, often rooted in personal beliefs, experiencing nature, and relatively high climate awareness, indicate the potential of this type of activity as a tool for health and environmental education. However, there is a certain pitfall here, namely that OPA participants—despite their strong attachment to nature and the use of its assets to improve/maintain their health—are less likely to pay attention to the impact of their own PA on the ecosystem, and are also less likely to express support for equality, integration, and social intervention policies. This discrepancy suggests that the approach to health in this group is sometimes fragmented and that there are certain limitations in the practical understanding of the One Health concept. Specifically, this means that those involved in OPA, being focused on caring for their own holistic health, overlook the social aspect (responsibility for the natural and social environment) that is important for public health. Meanwhile, contemporary challenges such as climate change, migration, structural inequalities, and the increase in mental disorders require integrated action, both at the individual and community levels. OPA can and should play a pro-health role, but also an integrative and civic one, acting as a ‘third place’ that builds social capital. The selective internalisation of the One Health idea demonstrated in this paper shows that the effective implementation of this idea requires cross-sectoral cooperation and the conscious shaping of civic attitudes. From the perspective of this analysis, the coexistence of social values and attitudes based on responsibility, inclusion, and social justice is of key importance. Understanding the importance of these findings can pave the way for the effective use of OPA as an instrument supporting a systemic and coherent approach to health. This is important not only for the health and well-being services sector, but also for other sectors of the economy, such as the recreation and tourism industries.
To translate these findings into practice, we recommend designing OPA programmes that explicitly combine physical activity with environmental education, for example, by promoting ‘leave no trace’ principles or integrating citizen science into nature-based exercise. Urban planners and local authorities should ensure equitable access to safe and biodiverse green spaces, especially in underserved communities. Moreover, integrating OPA into national public health campaigns and cross-sectoral initiatives could help operationalise the One Health strategy at both local and policy levels.

6. Limitations

A strong and, at the same time, weak point of this study is that we use data from Special Eurobarometer 2022. The advantage of Eurobarometer is the cyclical nature and representativeness of the sample, which facilitates the replication and verification of results and further exploration. From the point of view of the research problem, it is not without significance that the questions concern not only the attitudes and behaviours of respondents, but also their opinions on public policies. This allows us to link the level of individual actions with the perception of systemic solutions, showing a broader and more contextual picture of social behaviour. The limitations of this study stem from the characteristics of the data. Firstly, the Eurobarometer is not a longitudinal study, which limits the ability to construct pseudo-experimental designs and draw stronger causal inferences. In addition, it uses a general response menu addressed to all respondents, which may hinder unambiguous interpretation. This confirms the need for in-depth research analysing the direct causal relationship between OPA and environmental behaviour. Additionally, some analyses—particularly those involving low-frequency responses—relied on small subsamples, which may have reduced statistical power and limited the generalizability of findings. Finally, no multivariable models were applied, which limits the ability to control for potential confounders such as gender, age, education, or urban–rural residence, all of which may influence both physical activity patterns and environmental or social attitudes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B. and M.P.; methodology, E.B. and M.P.; validation, E.B. and M.P.; formal analysis, M.P.; investigation, E.B. and M.P.; data curation, E.B. and M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, E.B. and M.P.; visualization, E.B. and M.P.; supervision, E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences approved the study (approval nr. KEwN/60/2014 dated 28 November 2014).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. WHO. One Health. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1 (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  2. Vithanage, M.; Prasad, M.N.V. One Health; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; ISBN 9781119867302. [Google Scholar]
  3. Eigenschenk, B.; Thomann, A.; McClure, M.; Davies, L.; Gregory, M.; Dettweiler, U.; Inglés, E. Benefits of Outdoor Sports for Society. A Systematic Literature Review and Reflections on Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Barton, J.; Pretty, J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 3947–3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lawton, E.; Brymer, E.; Clough, P.; Denovan, A. The Relationship between the Physical Activity Environment, Nature Relatedness, Anxiety, and the Psychological Well-being Benefits of Regular Exercisers. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lahart, I.; Darcy, P.; Gidlow, C.; Calogiuri, G. The Effects of Green Exercise on Physical and Mental Wellbeing: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Mutz, M.; Müller, J. Mental health benefits of outdoor adventures: Results from two pilot studies. J. Adolesc. 2016, 49, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Hine, R.; Sellens, M.; South, N.; Griffin, M. Green exercise in the UK countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2007, 50, 211–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Outdoor Industry Association. The Outdoor Recreation Economy. 2017. Available online: https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  12. Wheaton, B.; Roy, G.; Olive, R. Exploring Critical Alternatives for Youth Development through Lifestyle Sport: Surfing and Community Development in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Anagnostopoulos, A. Modelling runnable cities for a future city-living strategy. Transp. Res. Procedia 2023, 72, 4452–4459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anagnostopoulos, A. Designing runnable cities. Transp. Eng. 2024, 16, 100238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kuipers, Y.; Emonts, M.; ten Brink, P.; Mutafoglu, K.; Schweitzer, J.-P.; Kettunen, M.; Twigger-Ross, C.; Baker, J.; Tyrväinen, L.; Hujala, T.; et al. The Health and Social Benefits of Nature and Biodiversity Protection: Annex 2, 3 and 4. A Report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039). London/Brussels. 2016. Available online: https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Health_and_Social_Benefits_of_Nature_-_Final_Report_Annexes_2_3_and_4_sent.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  16. Sinnett, D.; Smith, N.; Burgess, S. Handbook on Green Infrastructure; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; ISBN 9781783474004. [Google Scholar]
  17. Thompson Coon, J.; Boddy, K.; Stein, K.; Whear, R.; Barton, J.; Depledge, M.H. Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1761–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Focht, B.C. Brief walks in outdoor and laboratory environments: Effects on affective responses, enjoyment, and intentions to walk for exercise. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2009, 80, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Poli, L.; Greco, G.; Gabriele, M.; Pepe, I.; Centrone, C.; Cataldi, S.; Fischetti, F. Effect of Outdoor Cycling, Virtual and Enhanced Reality Indoor Cycling on Heart Rate, Motivation, Enjoyment and Intention to Perform Green Exercise in Healthy Adults. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2024, 9, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Izenstark, D.; Oswald, R.F.; Holman, E.G.; Mendez, S.N.; Greder, K.A. Rural, Low-Income Mothers’ Use of Family-Based Nature Activities to Promote Family Health. J. Leis. Res. 2016, 48, 134–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ewert, A.W.; Sibthorp, J. Outdoor Adventure Education: Foundations, Theory, and Research; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  22. Muller, J.; McEwan, K.; Gorczynski, P.; Weston, N. Defining contemporary outdoor physical activity: A critical interpretive synthesis. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2024, 47, 100799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Eigenschenk, B.; Thomann, A.; McClure, M. BOSS: Benefits of Outdoor Sports for Society. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/project-result-content/0d6e1f37-4653-4688-8040-2ab49a74c57f/11257_BOSS_Stage1_Long_Report.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  24. Mapes, N. Green exercise and dementia. In Green Exercise: Linking Nature, Health and Well-Being; Barton, J., Bragg, R., Wood, C., Pretty, J.N., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 150–160. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mitchell, R. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 91, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. de Moor, D. Walking Works: Making the Case to Encourage Greater Uptake of Walking as a Physical Activity and Recognise the Value and Benefits of Walking for Health; Ramblers and Macmillan Cancer Support; Ramblers and Macmillan Cancer Support: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Raichlen, D.A.; Bharadwaj, P.K.; Fitzhugh, M.C.; Haws, K.A.; Torre, G.-A.; Trouard, T.P.; Alexander, G.E. Differences in Resting State Functional Connectivity between Young Adult Endurance Athletes and Healthy Controls. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Henstock, M.; Barker, K.; Knijnik, J. 2, 6, heave!: Sail training’s influence on the development of self-concept and social networks and their impact on engagement with learning and education: A pilot study. Aust. J. Outdoor Educ. 2013, 17, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rosa, P.F.; Carvalhinho, L.A.D. A educação ambiental e o desporto na natureza: Uma reflexão crítica sobre os novos paradigmas da educação ambiental e o potencial do desporto como metodologia de ensino. Movimento 2012, 18, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Andre, E.K.; Williams, N.; Schwartz, F.; Bullard, C. Benefits of Campus Outdoor Recreation Programs: A Review of the Literature. J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh. 2017, 9, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Breunig, M.C.; O’Connell, T.S.; Todd, S.; Anderson, L.; Young, A. The Impact of Outdoor Pursuits on College Students’ Perceived Sense of Community. J. Leis. Res. 2010, 42, 551–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 913–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Abu-Omar, K. S7-1 Physical activity and planetary health. Eur. J. Public Health 2023, 33, ckad133.033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bronfenbrenner, U. Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; ISBN 0674028848. [Google Scholar]
  36. WHO. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9241514183. [Google Scholar]
  37. European Commission. Sport and Physical Activity. Special Eurobarometer 525. 2022. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/356346 (accessed on 22 February 2024).
  38. Nugraha, H.; Hernawan, H.; Ali, M.; Rahmat, A.; Septianto, I.; Aryati, A.; Suryadi, D. Outdoor activities and outdoor environments for fitness and mental health: A systematic review. Retos 2024, 59, 642–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Calogiuri, G.; Brambilla, E.; Flaten, O.E.; Fröhlich, F.; Litleskare, S. Reconnecting people to nature through virtual reality: A mixed-methods field study in the context of public engagement events. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2025, 8, 100254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. The Norwegian Directorate of Health. Fysisk Aktivitet og Sedat tid Blant Voksne og Eldre i Norge—Nasjonal Kartlegging 2014–15; The Norwegian Directorate of Health (NDH): Oslo, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Aaltonen, S.; Rottensteiner, M.; Kaprio, J.; Kujala, U.M. Motives for physical activity among active and inactive persons in their mid-30s. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2014, 24, 727–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Prémusz, V.; Makai, A.; Ács, P.; Derkács, E.; Laczkó, T. Association of Outdoor Physical Activity and Sports with Life Satisfaction among Women of Reproductive Age According to a European Representative Sample-A Longitudinal Analysis. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13, 1859–1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Duncan, M.J.; Clarke, N.D.; Birch, S.L.; Tallis, J.; Hankey, J.; Bryant, E.; Eyre, E.L.J. The effect of green exercise on blood pressure, heart rate and mood state in primary school children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 3678–3688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blond, K.; Jensen, M.K.; Rasmussen, M.G.; Overvad, K.; Tjønneland, A.; Østergaard, L.; Grøntved, A. Prospective Study of Bicycling and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Danish Men and Women. Circulation 2016, 134, 1409–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Scragg, R.; Camargo, C.A. Frequency of leisure-time physical activity and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the US population: Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2008, 168, 577–586, discussion 587–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Crane, M.; Rissel, C.; Standen, C.; Greaves, S. Associations between the frequency of cycling and domains of quality of life. Health Promot. J. Austr. 2014, 25, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Calogiuri, G.; Elliott, L.R. Why Do People Exercise in Natural Environments? Norwegian Adults’ Motives for Nature-, Gym-, and Sports-Based Exercise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Deelen, I.; Ettema, D.; Kamphuis, C.B.M. Sports participation in sport clubs, gyms or public spaces: How users of different sports settings differ in their motivations, goals, and sports frequency. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rogerson, M.; Gladwell, V.F.; Gallagher, D.J.; Barton, J.L. Influences of Green Outdoors versus Indoors Environmental Settings on Psychological and Social Outcomes of Controlled Exercise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Weng, P.-Y.; Chiang, Y.-C. Psychological Restoration through Indoor and Outdoor Leisure Activities. J. Leis. Res. 2014, 46, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barton, J.; Bragg, R.; Pretty, J.; Roberts, J.; Wood, C. The Wilderness Expedition. J. Exp. Educ. 2016, 39, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sandros, L. Polacy a Rozwój Osobisty [Poles and Personal Development]. 2015. Available online: https://networkmagazyn.pl/raport_polacy_a_rozwoj_osobisty/ (accessed on 30 June 2025).
  55. Lee, E.-Y.; Abi Nader, P.; Aubert, S.; González, S.A.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Khan, A.; Huang, W.Y.; Manyanga, T.; Morrison, S.; Silva, D.A.S.; et al. Economic Freedom, Climate Culpability, and Physical Activity Indicators Among Children and Adolescents: Report Card Grades From the Global Matrix 4.0. J. Phys. Act. Health 2022, 19, 745–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Brook, I. The Importance of Nature, Green Spaces, and Gardens in Human Well-Being. Ethics Place Environ. 2010, 13, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Palmberg, I.E.; Kuru, J. Outdoor Activities as a Basis for Environmental Responsibility. J. Environ. Educ. 2000, 31, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Luthe, T.; Häusler, R.; Roth, R.-D. Die Durchführung alternativer Schneesportausfahrten und deren Nutzung zur Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung (BfnE). Sportunterricht 2007, 56, 366–370. [Google Scholar]
  59. Esteben, A. Natural Solutions: Nature’s Role in Delivering Well-Being and Key Policy Goals—Opportunities for the Third Sector. 2012. Available online: https://new-economicsf.files.svdcdn.com/production/files/a39a39ba513ead1444_4gm6iszrq.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2025).
  60. Bácsné-Bába, É.; Ráthonyi, G.; Pfau, C.; Müller, A.; Szabados, G.N.; Harangi-Rákos, M. Sustainability-Sport-Physical Activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bell, S.; Tyrväinen, L.; Sievänen, T.; Pröbstl, U.; Simpson, M. Outdoor Recreation and Nature Tourism: A European Perspective. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 2007, 1, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Biernat, E.; Piątkowska, M.; Podstawski, R. Sports and physical activity of Poles in the context of good health and well-being as a sustainable development goal. Balt. J. Health Phys. Act. 2025, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Silva, D.A.S.; Aubert, S.; Manyanga, T.; Lee, E.-Y.; Salvo, D.; Tremblay, M.S. Physical Activity Report Card Indicators and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Insights From Global Matrix 4.0. J. Phys. Act. Health 2024, 21, 1372–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kamphuis, C.B.M.; van Lenthe, F.J.; Giskes, K.; Huisman, M.; Brug, J.; Mackenbach, J.P. Socioeconomic status, environmental and individual factors, and sports participation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jean, R.; Naka, K.; Christian, C.S.; Gyawali, B.R.; Bowman, T.; Hopkinson, S. Outdoor Recreation in Southeastern United States National Forests: An Investigation of the Influence of Ethnicity and Gasoline Price on Individual Participation. Tour. Hosp. 2023, 4, 257–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Klenert, D.; Mattauch, L.; Combet, E.; Edenhofer, O.; Hepburn, C.; Rafaty, R.; Stern, N. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Change 2018, 8, 669–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Furman, N.; Sibthorp, J. The Development of Prosocial Behavior in Adolescents. J. Exp. Educ. 2014, 37, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gagliardi, C.; Pillemer, K.; Gambella, E.; Piccinini, F.; Fabbietti, P. Benefits for Older People Engaged in Environmental Volunteering and Socializing Activities in City Parks: Preliminary Results of a Program in Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. O’Brien, L.; Townsend, M.; Ebden, M. ‘I’d Like to Think That When I’m Gone I Will Have Left This a Better Place’: Environmental Volunteering—Motivations, Barriers and Benefits. Report to the Scottish Forestry Trust and Forestry Commission. Available online: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-7GDHD3 (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  70. Schulenkorf, N. Sport-for-Development Events and Social Capital Building: A Critical Analysis of Experiences from Sri Lanka. J. Sport Dev. 2013, 1, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  71. Biernat, E.; Nałęcz, H.; Skrok, Ł.; Majcherek, D. Do Sports Clubs Contribute to the Accumulation of Regional Social Capital? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pillemer, K.; Fuller-Rowell, T.E.; Reid, M.C.; Wells, N.M. Environmental volunteering and health outcomes over a 20-year period. Gerontologist 2010, 50, 594–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Skrok, Ł.; Majcherek, D.; Nałęcz, H.; Biernat, E. Impact of sports activity on Polish adults: Self-reported health, social capital & attitudes. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0226812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Biernat, E.; Majcherek, D.; Skrok, Ł. Socio ecological profiles of participants in sports activity in Poland: Random tree based analysis. Acta Kinesiol. 2021, 15, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Thorpe, H. Action sports for youth development: Critical insights for the SDP community. Int. J. Sport Policy Politics 2016, 8, 91–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dorsch, T.; Richards, K.A.R.; Swain, J.; Maxey, M. The Effect of an Outdoor Recreation Program on Individuals With Disabilities and their Family Members: A Case Study. Ther. Recreat. J. 2016, 50, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Johnson, J.; Chin, J.W. Seeking new glory (d)haze: A qualitative examination of adventure-based, team orientation rituals as an alternative to traditional sport hazing for athletes and coaches. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2016, 11, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Moxham, L.; Liersch-Sumskis, S.; Taylor, E.; Patterson, C.; Brighton, R. Preliminary Outcomes of a Pilot Therapeutic Recreation Camp for People with a Mental Illness. Ther. Recreat. J. 2015, 49, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Aggression and Violence in the Inner City. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 543–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Korpela, K.M.; Ylén, M.; Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H. Favorite green, waterside and urban environments, restorative experiences and perceived health in Finland. Health Promot. Int. 2010, 25, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Gilchrist, P.; Wheaton, B. Lifestyle sport, public policy and youth engagement: Examining the emergence of parkour. Int. J. Sport Policy Politics 2011, 3, 109–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cardone, P. The gym as intercultural meeting point? Binding effects and boundaries in gym interaction. Eur. J. Sport Soc. 2019, 16, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huyghe, J.; D’Hoore, N.; Thibaut, E.; Scheerder, J. Unveiling the urban sports landscape: Profiling participants, motives, and policy implications. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0306305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Daniel, B.; Bobilya, A.J.; Kalisch, K.R.; McAvoy, L.H. Autonomous Student Experiences in Outdoor and Adventure Education. J. Exp. Educ. 2014, 37, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0743203043. [Google Scholar]
  87. Andrews, D.L.; Silk, M.L. Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture; Temple University Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Comparison of motivational, civic, and environmental priorities among individuals practising sport and physical activity in outdoor (OPA) versus non-outdoor settings.
Table 1. Comparison of motivational, civic, and environmental priorities among individuals practising sport and physical activity in outdoor (OPA) versus non-outdoor settings.
OPA (n = 259)Non-Outdoor PA (n = 311)OR (95% CI)pTotal (n = 570)
n (%)n (%)n (%)
Motivators of engagement in sport or physical activity
Health213 (82.2)173 (55.6)3.69 (2.5–5.45)<0.0001386 (67.7)
Fitness and physical performance244 (94.2)200 (64.3)9.03 (5.1–15.97)<0.0001444 (77.9)
Physical appearance47 (18.1)54 (17.4)1.06 (0.69–1.62)NS101 (17.7)
Psychological benefits164 (63.3)150 (48.2)1.85 (1.2–2.59)<0.0001314 (55.1)
Social interaction43 (16.6)46 (14.8)1.15 (0.13–1.8)NS89 (15.6)
Personal growth10 (3.9)37 (11.9)0.3 (0.14–0.61)<0.000147 (8.2)
Promoting environmental concern through sport and physical activity
Action against climate change38 (14.7)31 (10.0)1.46 (0.88–2.42)NS69 (12.1)
Agricultural policy11 (4.2)14 (4.5)0.94 (0.42–2.11)NS25 (4.4)
Perceived impacts of tackling climate change *
Tackling climate change can create new opportunities for innovation, investment, and jobs—Agree235 (90.7)279 (89.7)1.12 (0.64–1.96)NS514 (90.2)
Tackling climate change can help improve your own health and well-being—Agree239 (92.3)285 (91.6)1.09 (0.59–2.0)NS524 (91.9)
Tackling climate change can harm our economy—Agree147 (56.8)227 (73.0)0.49 (0.34–0.69)<0.0001374 (65.6)
Tackling climate change now can help reduce the costs of greater ecological damage in the future238 (91.9)281 (9.4)1.21 (0.67–2.17)NS519 (91.1)
Social integration and community bonding through sport and physical activity
Citizens’ engagement in volunteering in sport * p
Currently or intend to engage19 (7.3)20 (6.4)1.15 (0.6–2.21)NS39 (6.8)
Priority value for the European Parliament
The fight against poverty and social exclusion3 (1.2)11 (3.5)0.32 (0.09–1.16)NS14 (2.5)
Humanitarian aid and development assistance9 (3.5)12 (3.9)0.9 (0.37–2.16)NS21 (3.7)
The fight against terrorism and organised crime6 (2.3)11 (3.5)0.65 (0.24–1.77)NS17 (3.0)
Gender equality, inclusion, and diversity3 (1.2)17 (5.5)0.2 (0.06–0.7)0.0120 (3.5)
Note: * For analysis purposes, the response category ‘Disagree’ in case of perceived impacts of tackling climate change and ‘Not currently engaged’ in case of citizens’ engagement in volunteering in sport were omitted and treated as the reference group.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Biernat, E.; Piątkowska, M. Outdoor Physical Activity in the Service of Sustainable Development and One Health: The Role of Physical Activity in Shaping Pro-Social and Pro-Environmental Attitudes. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156926

AMA Style

Biernat E, Piątkowska M. Outdoor Physical Activity in the Service of Sustainable Development and One Health: The Role of Physical Activity in Shaping Pro-Social and Pro-Environmental Attitudes. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156926

Chicago/Turabian Style

Biernat, Elżbieta, and Monika Piątkowska. 2025. "Outdoor Physical Activity in the Service of Sustainable Development and One Health: The Role of Physical Activity in Shaping Pro-Social and Pro-Environmental Attitudes" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156926

APA Style

Biernat, E., & Piątkowska, M. (2025). Outdoor Physical Activity in the Service of Sustainable Development and One Health: The Role of Physical Activity in Shaping Pro-Social and Pro-Environmental Attitudes. Sustainability, 17(15), 6926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156926

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop