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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission. This is an interesting and focused article that presents an original exploration of how outdoor physical activity contributes to both personal health and broader sustainability objectives.

There are both minor and major comments that should be addressed by the authors in order the manuscript to be accepted. Below, I provide a detailed review based on various aspects of the manuscript:

1. While the analysis is rigorous, the novelty is somewhat limited because much of the discussion confirms existing literature rather than revealing new causal pathways. Highlight clearly in the Introduction and Conclusion what new understanding this paper brings compared to existing work.
2. The Introduction is well-written and provides a strong background. However, it would benefit from a brief paragraph at the end summarizing the structure of the paper to help readers navigate the subsequent sections.
3. Consider strengthening your literature review by consulting the following relevant articles on active mobility as a form of outdoor physical activity that intersects health, sustainability, and pro-environmental behavior: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.treng.2024.100238, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.299
4. A limitation of this study is that some analyses, particularly those involving low-frequency responses were based on small subsamples. This may result in low statistical power. I think you should discuss this on the limitations.
5. The discussion is thoughtful and well referenced. However, I feel that some interpretations could be more cautious. For example, the finding that OPA participants are less supportive of gender equality measures is interesting but should be treated carefully to avoid overgeneralization or assumptions about underlying ideological positions without further evidence.
6. The conclusion rightly emphasizes the importance of integrating OPA into One Health strategies and sustainability agendas. However, practical recommendations are quite general. Provide more concrete recommendations
7. Some paragraphs in the Discussion are very long, making the text dense.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates how outdoor physical activity (OPA) may contribute to health, environmental awareness, and One Health goals, using Eurobarometer 97.3 survey data of 570 Polish respondents.

 

1.The study’s connection to the One Health framework is superficial. The article does not incorporate robust behavioral or ecological health theories, leaving the conceptual framework underdeveloped.

 

2.The authors use cross-sectional survey data but repeatedly imply causal relationships in the discussion. This is misleading and weakens the scientific rigor of the claims.

 

3.The definition of outdoor vs. non-outdoor activity is vague. Grouping gym workouts, home exercises, and transport-related physical activity together under “non-outdoor” lacks granularity and undermines the comparison’s validity.

 

4.Only univariate tests are used (chi-square, Mann–Whitney U), with no multivariable regression models to adjust for confounders like gender, employment status, or education. This limits the robustness of the findings.

 

5.Several environmental attitude indicators showed no statistically significant differences, yet the authors emphasize them in the discussion. This reflects confirmation bias and should be avoided.

 

6.The discussion section is lengthy and repetitive, with literature citations overshadowing a critical analysis of the study’s own findings. The text could be significantly tightened.

 

7.The article fails to offer actionable insights or policy implications regarding how OPA can be used in the One Health framework, which limits its impact and novelty.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Basic reporting

Dear authors, the manuscript is generally well-written and easy to read; a slight spell-check is required. I have just some concerns that must be addressed. 

Abstract

keywords usually should be different from that used in the main title.

Introduction

The literature on the subject is sufficiently well summarised. However, it could be useful to clarify some information about:

• you often present benefits of OPA as if these are causally established, when many studies are correlational. It should be clear that these are associations, not necessarily direct effects.
• The core of One Health is interconnection among human, animal, and environmental health, yet OPA is mostly framed around human benefits. I.e., how OPA could protect biodiversity? These connections need elaboration.
• The discussion of what counts as OPA is detailed but potentially confusing. For example: artificial environments “that recreate the natural environment” are allowed, how is that boundary defined? You could consider this work on the topic: 10.3390/jfmk9040183; 10.1016/j.wss.2025.100254

 

Methods

• It’s unclear whether individuals who engage in both outdoor and indoor activities are classified as outdoor, non-outdoor, or excluded.
• When you refer to "those who engage in PA in outdoor settings", does this mean exclusively or occasionally?
• There’s no mention of controlling for confounders like, age, education, income, or urban/rural residence. These could influence both physical activity setting and attitudes (e.g., more green space = more outdoor PA = stronger pro-environmental views).
• The measure of self-assessed environmental attention (1–6 scale) is subjective and its validity or reliability is not reported.

 

Validity of the findings

• Statements like “OPA provides benefits” or “OPA enables contact with nature” suggest causality, which your study design cannot support. You should use sentences like “participation in OPA is associated with”
• I may be wrong but, you assert the health benefits of OPA, but this is not measured in your study (you measure motivations, not health outcomes). If so, you cannot claim that your data supports health outcomes simply because OPA participants are motivated by health.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adressed all my concerns. I have no further suggestions.