Next Article in Journal
Implementation of Additive Manufacturing Technologies for the Growth and Sustainability of Manufacturing SMEs in Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory Study
Previous Article in Journal
Customer Environmental Performance and Supplier Green Innovation: A Sustainable Supply Chain Perspective
 
 
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 3
10.3390/su17031245
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

Do Positive Environmental Changes Impact Residents’ Intention of Rural Development? Role of Leisure and Quality of Life

by
Nam Nguyen-Dinh
and
Heng Zhang
*
Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(3), 1245; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031245
Submission received: 23 December 2024 / Revised: 23 January 2025 / Accepted: 26 January 2025 / Published: 4 February 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Leisure activities positively impact community development including benefits related to enhancing physical health, improving mental health, developing social skills, encouraging creativity, and enhancing quality of life. However, the relationship between leisure activities’ benefits and residents’ motivation to participate in community building remains little explored. To fill the gap, this study constructed structural equation modeling including positive environment changes, residents’ participation, leisure activities, and improving quality of life. The results found three key implications of positive environmental changes in boosting the intention of community participation, including the following: (1) positive environment changes including making more green space, enhancing the aesthetics of community layout, and building more open spaces significantly boost recreational activity demand; (2) leisure activities and their multifaceted impacts lead to improved quality of life contributing to the residents’ intention of community development; (3) the intention of community development participation is strongly influenced by perceptions of the positive changes in physical landscapes and by the mediating role of leisure activities and benefits of the quality of life. The findings provide insight and perspective for policymakers and planners toward sustainable living environments. Additionally, they emphasize the critical role of diverse, accessible recreational opportunities in enhancing the overall quality of life in dynamic residential contexts.

1. Introduction

The relationship between people and their physical surroundings is a central focus in environmental psychology and an important aspect of studying human quality of life. Scholars argue that the environment offers numerous benefits, including physical, mental, economic, cultural, and social advantages [1,2,3].
Improving the physical environment will help individuals in the community have more opportunities to develop, including leisure activities [4]. Research has highlighted the significant impact of natural and built environments on the physical, mental, and social needs of children and adults based on their engagement in sports, games, entertainment, and socializing [5,6]. Enhancements in infrastructure, increased greenery, aesthetic landscape elements, and public open spaces create ideal conditions that attract people to engage in physical activities, mental exercises, and social interactions [7]. Engaging in active leisure activities is associated with numerous physical health benefits, such as preventing chronic diseases like obesity and cardiovascular issues, improving physical fitness, and increasing longevity [8,9]. Additionally, these activities significantly contribute to mental health by reducing stress, improving mood, and enhancing cognitive function [10]. Furthermore, leisure activities also foster a sense of belonging and social cohesion through team-based activities [11].
The desire to identify then behavioral predictors that increase community participation in preserving and enhancing environmental benefits for quality of life is a frequently discussed topic in scientific research [12]. Behavioral predictors refer to factors that can help anticipate or influence people’s behaviors or actions in a specific context. In the context of existing research, behavioral predictors would be factors that can help predict whether individuals or groups will engage in environmentally beneficial actions, such as interest in environmental problems, intention to plant trees, reducing waste and saving energy, willingness to participate in community clean-up events, or advocating for policies that promote sustainability. However, if individuals believe their actions would not make a significant difference, they may be less likely to engage in sustainability efforts. On the other hand, if people do not understand the environmental benefits or the impact of their actions, they may not see the value in participating. Moreover, if environmental behaviors are not widely practiced or valued within a community, they can also limit the consensus of the collective. Thus, identifying these predictors is useful for designing interventions or campaigns that encourage greater community involvement in sustainability efforts. Some scholars believe that life satisfaction and happiness are key elements of well-being and indicators of place attachment and community involvement [13,14]. Based on this criterion, research groups propose improving the physical environment, enhancing landscape quality, and developing service systems to meet the population’s needs fully [15,16]. Despite the recognized benefits of leisure activities—improving physical and mental quality of life, promoting social interaction, and fostering community cohesion—their role is often underrepresented in community development research [17]. Neglecting the consideration of recreation as a predictor of community engagement in decision-making or developing community development strategies creates a gap that affects future success.
This article contributes to the existing theoretical base by focusing on the value of leisure activities and the behavioral participation intentions of individuals in rural Vietnam, using a large sample of leisure activities. This study examines whether the association between quality of life and community participation depends on the positive environmental changes and demand for recreational activities. It also explores the types of entertainment preferred by people in rural Vietnam. This article is structured as follows: a brief literature review of positive environmental changes, leisure activities, improving quality of life, and residents’ participation supporting the development of research hypotheses; an explanation of sample characteristics, variables, and analyses performed; a presentation of results; and a discussion of key findings, implications for policymakers, study limitations, and directions for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Understanding the Purpose of the Positive Changes in Environment of the New Rural Development (NRD) Program, Vietnam

As a pivotal national initiative in community development, the NRD program has been established to assist rural areas in upgrading environmental infrastructure and enhancing the mental health and life quality of their residents [18]. Between 2010 and 2020, the NRD program successfully achieved numerous key goals, such as improving the living environment in rural areas to create a healthy and safe community; investing in roads, electricity and water systems, recreational facilities, and public buildings; and replanning residential areas to ensure cleanliness and safety and meet environmental sanitation standards [19,20,21,22,23]. The government anticipated that this program would continue to make a sustainable contribution to the rural agricultural economy, foster the development of local ecotourism, safeguard the eco-environment, and maintain security. To achieve these objectives, managers understand that community participation plays a crucial role. Local authorities at all levels regularly organize propaganda and encouragement so that people understand the importance of environmental protection. The benefits that the program brings have had a positive impact on the quality of life of residents.
However, according to the observations of some scholars, there are still some difficulties in calling for or encouraging people to participate in new rural construction. One of the biggest difficulties is that people’s awareness of the importance and benefits of new rural construction is still limited. Many people still do not see clearly the connection between the new rural construction program and their daily lives, especially in remote areas, where people’s understanding and participation are limited [24]. In addition, another reason why people have not actively participated is the lack of sustainable and effective economic development models, making people unable to see the practical benefits of participating in new rural construction programs [25]. These difficulties and limitations need to be overcome, and at the same time, specific and practical development models need to be created to enhance community participation in the process of building new rural areas. This is considered a driving force that encourages them to participate in community activities and supervise the implementation of public projects in the future to adapt to sustainable development.

2.2. Hypothesis Development

2.2.1. Relationship Between Positive Environmental Changes and Leisure Activities

The physical environment encompasses the geographic area and surrounding elements where humans reside, work, learn, and engage in activities, including leisure pursuits. It includes natural components [26] and built structures [27]. They could be categorized into six factors: “green area”, “community layout”, “architectural scale”, “aesthetics”, “open space”, and “street landscape” as the main components to describe the physical environment [1].
The evolution of a residential community can bring about changes in the physical environment. Efforts to improve infrastructure, clean up the environment, and develop green spaces can bring positive changes that are fundamental to facilitating recreational activities, which refer to the range of activities that individuals engage in during their free time for enjoyment, relaxation, and recreation [28,29]. A study by Besser and Dannenberg (2005) [30] found that improved infrastructure can reduce physical barriers that can significantly influence the types and frequency of recreational activities of residents. Proximity to parks and recreational facilities was positively correlated with higher levels of physical activity among residents. Access to well-maintained and safe recreational spaces encourages frequent use, thus promoting a more active and cohesive community [31]. Aesthetic improvements to the environment, such as greening initiatives and landscaping, increase the attractiveness of outdoor spaces, making them attractive and a preferred choice for recreational activities including walking, picnicking, and nature observation [32,33].
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Positive environmental changes directly affect leisure activities.

2.2.2. Relationship Between Leisure Activities and Improving Quality of Life (QoL)

According to Wang, Xu, and Pei (2012) [34], leisure activities are activities that satisfy people’s interests in their free time. They can help people gain many physical, mental, and social benefits [35]. They classified leisure activities into three categories: “physical activity”, “mental activity”, and “social activity”.
On the other hand, Cho, Post, and Kim (2018) [36] suggested that leisure activities can be categorized into passive and active forms. Passive activities, such as reading and watching television, primarily offer mental relaxation, whereas active activities, such as sports, hiking, and gardening, involve physical exertion that provides substantial health benefits [37,38].
Good physical health allows individuals to perform daily activities effectively and enjoy a longer, more active life [9,39]. It is able to prevent chronic diseases like obesity and cardiovascular issues, improve fitness, and enhance longevity [8], fostering social interaction and cohesion [40].
Good mental well-being can lead to emotional stability, resilience, and the ability to cope with stress and life’s challenges [10,41]. Social connections, which include strong interpersonal relationships and a sense of community, provide emotional support, enhance life satisfaction, and contribute to a sense of belonging. Adedeji (2021) [42] emphasizes that social capital, or the networks and norms that facilitate collective action, is essential for fostering social well-being and improving QoL.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Leisure activities directly affect improving quality of life.

2.2.3. Relationship Between Positive Environmental Changes and Improving Quality of Life

According to the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQoL) Group, improving quality of life reflects an individual’s overall sense of well-being and satisfaction with life, influenced by factors such as health, comfort, happiness, and the ability to pursue personal goals and activities [43,44]. Enhancing community QoL can be observed through improved physical health, mental health, and social cohesion, with current scores surpassing previous ones [1,45,46].
In the relationship between environment and QoL, once the physical environment is well taken care of, it can be positively changed and plays a pivotal role in determining human quality of life. Clean air, safe water, green spaces, adequate housing, and sustainable urban design contribute to a higher quality of life by offering opportunities for enjoyable recreation, enhancing life satisfaction, and enabling individuals to lead healthy, active, and fulfilling lives [47,48].
Enhanced infrastructure, such as well-maintained roads, sidewalks, and recreational facilities, encourages physical activity by making it safer and more accessible. According to Sallis, Floyd, Rodríguez, and Saelens (2012) [49], access to walkable neighborhoods and recreational spaces is strongly associated with higher levels of physical activity, which reduces the risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular conditions. The availability of clean water and improved sanitation facilities also significantly contributes to better health outcomes, reducing the incidence of waterborne diseases and enhancing overall public health [50].
Changes in the physical environment that create communal spaces such as parks, plazas, and community centers foster social interaction and community engagement. These spaces serve as venues for social activities, cultural events, and communal gatherings, which enhance social cohesion and build stronger community ties. Francis, Giles-Corti, Wood, and Knuiman (2012) [51] argued that well-designed public spaces promote social interaction and community participation, which are critical for building social capital and a sense of belonging. Increased social cohesion, in turn, supports mental health and provides a network of social support that is vital during times of need.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Positive environmental changes directly affect improving quality of life.

2.2.4. Links Between Positive Environmental Changes, Leisure Activities, Improving Quality of Life, and Residents’ Participation

Improvements to the physical environment, particularly in infrastructure, play a crucial role in promoting recreational activities, including the types and frequency of residents’ engagement in physical activities [52]. For example, the availability of walking paths and safe cycling areas has been linked to increased participation in activities like walking, jogging, and cycling. Maintenance and aesthetic enhancements like landscaping and greening initiatives increase the appeal of outdoor spaces. This encourages recreational activities like picnicking, walking, and nature observation, benefiting various aspects of QoL including both physical and mental well-being. Leisure activities, especially those involving exercise, profoundly impact physical health. Regular participation in sports, walking, and dancing helps prevent chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes, improves cardiovascular health, increases muscle strength, and helps maintain a healthy weight, thus contributing significantly to improving quality of life [9].
Some scholars have highlighted that engaging in enjoyable leisure activities provides a sense of accomplishment, reduces stress, and improves mood, thereby promoting mental health. According to Pressman et al. (2009) [10], individuals who regularly engage in leisure activities often demonstrate higher levels of well-being, as well as lower levels of stress. Reading, singing, playing chess, and pursuing artistic pursuits provide mental stimulation and relaxation, which are essential for maintaining cognitive function and emotional balance. Additionally, Mitchell and Popham (2008) [53] found that exposure to natural environments during outdoor leisure activities reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression in humans. Participation in group or social leisure activities, sports teams, or community events provides opportunities for cooperation, support, and shared experiences, thus helping to build social networks, strengthen relationships, and promote a sense of belonging [28].
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Positive environmental changes indirectly affect improving quality of life through the mediating influence of leisure activities.
Once residents experience the benefits of an improved physical environment and enhanced quality of life, they are likely to be more willing to participate in community activities in local governance. This participation is important for sustaining and promoting community development efforts. The Ladder of Citizen Participation established by Arnstein (1969) [54] illustrates that meaningful participation in decision-making processes leads to more sustainable and acceptable outcomes. Similarly, Marquet and Miralles-Guasch (2015) [55] found that residents in areas with better recreational infrastructure were more likely to participate in community activities and local governance, highlighting a reinforcing cycle between improvements in the physical environment and resident participation. Improvements in the physical environment led to increased recreational activities, which improve quality of life. In turn, improved quality of life can be seen as a cause of greater participation in community development by residents, which in turn can lead to further improvements in the physical environment. This cycle highlights the importance of initial investments in physical infrastructure and amenities to trigger a self-sustaining process of community improvement.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Improving quality of life directly affects residents’ participation.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Leisure activities directly affect residents’ participation.
Resident participation is tied to decision-making and communal benefits and is often studied through community participation and intention behavior concepts [56]. In the Theory of Planned Behavior suggested by Ajzen (1991) [57], intentional behavior predicts actual behavior, influenced by conscious intentions, including “interest”, “intention”, and “willingness” [58]. This concept is applied in tourism and business, where positive intentions lead to revisits and recommendations, while negative intentions result in complaints [59,60]. In community development, residents’ participation is scored by the index of collaboration, sense of belonging, and willingness to contribute [61].
According to the theory of “participatory democracy” that traces its origins to direct Athenian democracy, residents need to be empowered to be involved in local issues to support community development [62]. Agreeing with this opinion, Adedeji (2021) [42] suggested that participation is essential for fostering a sense of control and responsibility among community members, which is crucial for the sustainability of development efforts. Participation in matters related to daily life not only helps residents secure benefits for themselves but also aids in the development of individual social and political capabilities, contributing to improved physical and mental well-being. Additionally, participation plays a crucial role in effectively addressing community problems by involving individuals with increasing levels of experience and knowledge [63]. Therefore, community activities need to consider residents’ participation since they are impacted objects influenced by these daily life activities [64].
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Leisure activities indirectly affect residents’ participation through the mediating influence of improving quality of life.
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
Positive environmental changes directly affect residents’ participation.
Hypothesis 9 (H9).
Positive environmental changes indirectly affect residents’ participation through the mediating influence of leisure activities and improving quality of life.
Based on the above theoretical literature, this paper proposed a research structure (Figure 1) to test nine hypotheses as below.

2.3. Methods

2.3.1. Sample Sampling

Before conducting the survey, this study referenced the suggestions of Hair (2009) [65] and Naing, Winn, and Rusli (2006) [66] in the required sample amount. Hair recommended that for a research model with fewer than eight constructs the identified minimum sample size should be more than 150, while based on the estimation formula for finite population sample size by Naing et al., a minimum sample size of more than 384 was required.
The survey was conducted over four weeks in September 2023, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The lead author and three well-trained teams randomly approached residents in the An-Hoa-Thinh commune on streets, in markets, in leisure activity areas, and at their own houses to ask for participation to ensure their responses were appropriate for the research goal. Each resident received a questionnaire and responded voluntarily. Upon completing the questionnaire, they received a small gift as a thanks to avoid bias in responses.

2.3.2. Study Site

The study site was the An-Hoa-Thinh commune (Figure 2). This is a mountain region agricultural commune in Ha Tinh province that achieved the title of new rural commune in the National Target Program of Vietnam and continues to follow the higher level of this program to positively transform the rural environment, upgrade the landscape infrastructure, enhance services for the residents’ needs, improve life quality, and reduce the gap between urban and rural areas.
Currently, the local roadsides have been adorned with diverse plantings, enhancing the countryside’s aesthetics and providing useful spaces for activities like jogging, walking, and sightseeing (Figure 3). The An-Hoa-Thinh commune has invested in constructing a village cultural house as a focal point for community activities. Additionally, through the model garden program, residents grow green, standardized gardens around their private houses to create a local food source that contributes to the rural aesthetic and promotes ecotourism, ensuring sustainability in the locality.

2.3.3. Item and Reliability Analysis

Thirty-nine questions were designed based on the literature review and were separated into four sections representing four constructs. All measurement items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “very disagree” to 5 “very agree”.
The SPSS program (version 24) was used to assess the internal consistency of the measurements. Cronbach’s alpha served as a key index for reliability judgment ranging from 0 to 1 and is recommended above 0.6 [65]. The higher the Cronbach’s alpha, the greater the reliability.

2.3.4. Measurement Validity Test

Amos software (version 25) was used to conduct Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the fit and construct validity [67]. The model fit indices need to follow the criteria as follows: chi-square/df < 3, GFI > 0.9, AGFI > 0.9, CFI > 0.9, NFI > 0.9, PNFI > 0.5, RMR < 0.05, and RMSEA < 0.08. Additionally, the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the constructs in the model should be examined.
Convergent validity is confirmed when the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied: (1) the factor loading of items is above 0.5 and significant at the t-test; (2) the construct reliability (CR) is above 0.7; (3) the average variance extracted (AVE) for constructs is above 0.5.
Discriminant validity is an indication of the extent of the difference between constructs and is confirmed if the following conditions are met: (1) the item correlation in different dimensions should be low; (2) the average extraction of variation for each construct should be higher than the square of the correlation coefficient among constructs.

2.3.5. Structural Equation Model (SEM)

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is the next step of this study. In this stage, the causal relationships among the four constructs are assessed simultaneously. The method analyzes the direct effect levels of the directions between the constructs. Finally, the mediating effects are tested and evaluated on how much the effect size is in this relationship.

3. Results

3.1. Profile of Samples

In 515 questionnaires collected, 475 questionnaires were valid for analysis after eliminating 40 incomplete responses. Thus, the sample size was judged adequate for research. The demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Item and Reliability Analysis

Table 2 exposes the measured items’ mean scores and standardized deviation after using the descriptive and reliability analyses. Additionally, the analysis showed that Cronbach’s alpha of the four constructs was higher than 0.7. These results indicated that the dataset achieved high reliability for further in-depth analysis.

3.3. Measurement Validity Analysis

3.3.1. Confirmatory Analysis (CFA)

Table 3 shows that the factor loading of predictors exceeded the threshold of 0.5. Most of the composite reliability and average variance extraction of the four constructs were higher than the threshold, being, respectively, 0.7 and 0.5. The results confirmed that the proposed research model is compatible with the actual observation data and can explain the relationship between the constructs, meeting the validity criteria of the measurement model.

3.3.2. Discriminant Validity Analysis

Table 4 exhibits that all the indices of the square of the correlation coefficient among constructs (MSV) were lower than the average variance extraction (AVE). The results confirmed that the measured model satisfies the condition of the discriminant validity test.

3.4. Structural Equation Modelling Analysis

3.4.1. The Estimated Structural Model

The estimated fit of the structural model is comprehensively presented in Figure 4. Additionally, this model showed that the variance explained by constructs was high, such as IQoL at 72%, leisure activities at 68%, and participation at 67%.

3.4.2. The Direct and Mediating Effects

Table 5 provides the details of the direct and indirect effects of the four constructs in the research model, including six direct effect and three indirect effect dimensions supporting nine proposed hypotheses.

4. Discussion

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive analysis indicated that the respondents highly scored the changes in the physical environment, in which some indicators reached extreme mean scores, such as “green area”, “community layout”, and “open space”. In addition, they rated the mean score of “physical activity” at the highest level, followed by “mental activity” and “social activity”. These findings confirmed the role of the landscape and infrastructure elements in motivating leisure activities [5]. The more positive the changes in the environment, the more chance for people to practice recreation categories. The diversity of vegetation, the aesthetic in the layout of the landscape, the clean streets, and the openness of public spaces may be key factors that encourage people to deploy their favorite leisure activities such as walking, jogging, playing with balls, viewing the landscape, looking at the activities of everyone, and social interaction [69]. Based on the results, this study proposes policies to enhance people’s access to recreational activities and improve their quality of life. Green and environmentally friendly spaces should be developed by constructing and maintaining parks, gardens, and open green areas that cater to diverse needs such as walking, exercising, picnicking, or hosting events. Nature should be integrated into residential environments by creating walking, jogging, and cycling routes surrounded by trees to encourage healthy and active lifestyles. Community recreational facilities should be enhanced by building multi-functional centers that include sports areas, children’s playgrounds, creative art spaces, and cultural exchange zones. Outdoor infrastructure should also be supported with public fitness equipment, tables, chairs, and rest areas. Recreational activities should be promoted through festivals, cultural and sporting events, as well as awareness programs that highlight the health and social benefits of recreation. Equitable access should be ensured for all population groups by providing financial support to low-income individuals, people with disabilities, and older adults. Additionally, recreational spaces should be designed to be inclusive, incorporating ramps and clear signage to ensure accessibility. Recreation should be integrated into residential planning by allocating land for recreational spaces and developing public transport and walkways that connect residential areas to these spaces. Finally, the mean scores representing the residents’ participation in community development were recorded as extremely high, including “interest”, “intention”, and “willingness”. This can be explained by how, through the values from the environment, the residents perceived life improvement not only through physical and mental values but also in terms of social benefit. By engaging in community activities, they can create sympathy with neighbors having the same will, which helps to build sustainable social relationships and, consequently, gain collective support in decision-making or strategy building in community development [70]. These results seem to be preliminary confirmation that the proposed hypotheses can be accepted and need to be tested in depth at a later stage.

4.2. Structural Equation Modeling

4.2.1. Relationships Between Positive Environmental Changes, Leisure Activities, and Improving Quality of Life

The analysis pointed out that positive environmental changes had a significant positive effect on leisure activities (H1, β = 0.82, p = 0.001). The findings align with the assumption that improved infrastructure such as developing open spaces, convenient street connectivity, and aesthetically pleasing environments are important motivators that give more opportunities for residents to access leisure facilities and build healthy lifestyles such as engaging in walking, jogging, and cycling as healthy habits [71,72].
For hypothesis 2, the results indicated a significant effect of leisure activities on improving quality of life (H2, β = 0.44, p = 0.000). It emphasized the role of leisure activities in promoting human health. Obviously, maintaining physical activity can prevent diseases related to muscles, bones, and joints and adjust breathing rates to help the practitioner’s respiratory system operate stably [73]. Continuous activity also enhances excretion through the skin and adrenaline regulation, leading the practitioner to feel more excited, thereby greatly improving concentration and attention [74]. Some team-based recreational sports require participants to have good coordination with members to complete the tasks leading to understanding, sympathy, and empathy among members during a competition [75,76].
For hypothesis 3, the analysis indicated that positive environmental changes had a significant positive effect on the improvement of quality of life (H3, β = 0.45, p = 0.000). The interaction of humans with the environment through their daily activities can bring many benefits in physical, mental, and social well-being [77]. Going outside and immersing themselves in nature not only helps people reduce stress and balance their psychological status but also gives them more chances to meet other people promoting social relationships [78].
For hypothesis 4, the analysis indicated that leisure activities played a mediating role in creating an indirect effect of positive environmental changes on improving quality of life, which is significant (H4, β = 0.36, p = 0.000). The present study findings are additional to the suggestion of Bornioli and Subiza-Pérez (2023) [27] about the relationship between environment, activities related to social interactions, and positive feelings described by a pyramid model to distinguish the level of psychological restoration types. They argued that active restoration is the highest level, followed by passive restoration (level 2), and containment (level 3). Interaction with nature only stands on level 2, helping people gain passive restoration, such as enhancing mood, reducing stress and negative affect, and restoring attention. Personal engagement with cultural and social landscapes, social interactions, social activities, and a sense of community can help people obtain a top level which may help people achieve active restoration in addition to not only stress reduction, attention restoration, and positive affect but also attention stimulation, cognitive engagement, and hedonic well-being. In line with this argument, Pressman et al. (2009) [10] pointed out that people often intend to participate in social activities to interact with neighbors, fostering relaxation, open-mindedness, and social cohesion. Moreover, individuals can reach the highest positive psychological state when engaging in leisure activities with friends in a healthy environment [28].

4.2.2. Relationship Between Leisure Activities, Improving Quality of Life, and Residents’ Participation

For hypothesis 5, the structural model revealed that the improvement in quality of life had a significant positive effect on residents’ participation (H5, β = 0.31, p = 0.001). Once people perceive an environment that meets the basic benefits and offers numerous opportunities for enhancing their quality of life, they tend to form an attachment to the place [79] and actively participate in its development [64]. This finding supported the argument of Hossain (2012) [61] that the quality of life for residents depends on the environment where they live; thus, in turn, community participation plays a key role in being safe and improving benefits for the life of residents.
For hypothesis 6 and hypothesis 7, the analysis demonstrated a significant total impact of leisure activities on residents’ participation (β = 0.39, p = 0.001), including one direct effect of leisure activities (H6, β = 0.25, p = 0.013) and one indirect effect of improved quality of life (H7, β = 0.14, p = 0.000). These findings further reinforced the posits of Arai and Pedlar (1997) [80] on citizen participation in a healthy community initiative. He posited that improved health and well-being make residents more capable and motivated to engage in community development initiatives. Neighborhoods with accessible leisure facilities promote higher levels of community participation and social interaction [55]. When residents partake in shared recreational activities, such as sports, cultural events, or community gardening, they build social networks and strengthen communal ties. These interactions create norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit, encouraging collective action and participation in community development projects.

4.2.3. Impact of Positive Environmental Changes on Residents’ Participation and the Mediating Role of Leisure Activities and Improving Quality of Life

The hypotheses of the relationship between positive environmental changes and residents’ participation were shown to be well founded including one moderate direct impact (H8, β = 0.32, p = 0.001) and one stronger indirect impact (H9, β = 0.46, p = 0.000) from a mediating effect of leisure activities and improving quality of life, which made the total impact very substantial (β = 0.78, p = 0.000). These findings underscore that improvements in the physical environment create a positive feedback loop. This cycle aligns with the theory of Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) [81] on how environmental changes influence behavior through attitudinal and social mediators. Enhancing the physical environment supports a healthy setting that meets residents’ leisure activity needs, improving quality of life and subsequently boosting community engagement such as fostering collaboration and shared responsibility among members [82].

4.3. Empirical Implications

The research results highlighted several key implications of leisure activities for encouraging the residents’ participation in rural community development. First, this study underscores that modifications in the physical environment of rural areas are directly linked to residents’ needs for leisure activities and improved quality of life. Enhancements such as opening more public spaces, recreational facilities, and green spaces meet the needs of residents’ leisure activities such as physical, mental, and social activities.
Second, the development and availability of leisure activities are crucial for improving physical and mental health. Leisure activities such as sports, cultural events, and communal gatherings provide residents with opportunities for exercise, relaxation, social interaction, strengthening community bonds, and promoting social cohesion.
Third, once people engage in entertainment activities and experience an enhanced quality of life, they recognize the positive value of improving their living environment. This realization motivates them to maintain community building and contribute to local initiatives actively.

4.4. Limitations and Further Research

Although this article found surprising results, it still has several limitations that suggest avenues for further study. First, while structural equation modeling was employed to test the causal relationships between changes in the physical environment and human behaviors and psychologies, the estimates are based on cross-sectional data analysis. Future studies should employ the longitudinal approach to enable more precise testing of the relationships and insight into understanding environmental behavior, which can suggest building effective policies promoting healthy lifestyles and increasing community engagement in rural development.
Second, the data were derived from a survey conducted within a single commune. Consequently, the findings may not be representative of other regions and cannot be considered conclusive or generalizable. Further research should aim to measure additional psychological elements such as community spirit, place attachment, environmental concern, the perception of challenges, and disaster response, all of which may influence residents’ participation in community development.
Third, this study was conducted within a specific geographic region, where participants shared similar cultural backgrounds, historical contexts, and living environments. Consequently, the findings reflect a limited perspective and are not generalizable to broader populations [83]. To achieve a more comprehensive understanding and explore potential variations, future research should broaden its scope by incorporating diverse communities, participant groups, and contextual settings.
Additionally, the discovery of detailed assessment levels of physical, mental, and social activities can be applied to several future studies to examine whether individual differences play a potential role in influencing the choice of leisure activities in different landscapes and contexts [84]. The results obtained can serve as both criteria for selecting solutions for planning and constructing suitable types of recreational spaces in rural areas, as well as a reference for finding solutions to attract community participation in the new rural development program.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights how changes in the physical environment and leisure activities contribute to enhancing residents’ quality of life and participation in community development. Building a sustainable community is a long-term project and requires abundant resources as well as synchronous and harmonious implementation between supporting government and community engagement. Sustainable development depends not only on economics or the environment but also on social balance, in which human value development needs to be considered such as physical and mental health and social well-being. Managers and planners must realize that to achieve goals in community development they must first ensure a healthy living and working environment that meets the needs of recreation and development of residents themselves. Then, residents are more capable and motivated to engage in community development initiatives.
These findings also provide a solid scientific and practical foundation for policymakers to better understand the important role of improving the living environment in sustainable development strategies. Positive changes to the residential environment not only bring a new look to the area but also create far-reaching impacts on recreational activities, directly affecting the economic, social, and public health sectors.
In the economic field, studies show that when the residential environment is improved with green space, modern infrastructure, and public parks, recreational activities are promoted, attracting more tourists and facilitating the development of service industries such as restaurants, hotels, entertainment centers, and ecotourism. At the same time, a positive living environment helps reduce stress and improve the quality of life, thereby encouraging people to work more effectively, indirectly increasing labor productivity and promoting economic growth.
In terms of social and public health, the presence of green spaces and recreational areas not only encourages people to participate in physical activities such as walking, jogging, or playing sports but also improves physical health, reduces stress, relaxes the mind, and prevents psychological problems. At the same time, these spaces create opportunities to build close relationships between community members, thereby reducing crime, violence, and other negative behaviors.
These research results also open up opportunities for further interdisciplinary research in the future. By exploiting longitudinal data or analyzing diverse cultural and environmental contexts, new studies can provide a more comprehensive picture of sustainable development, not only in urban environments but also in rural areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.N.-D. and H.Z.; methodology, N.N.-D.; software, N.N.-D.; validation, H.Z.; formal analysis, N.N.-D.; investigation, N.N.-D.; data curation, N.N.-D.; writing—original draft preparation, N.N.-D.; writing—review and editing, H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to Legal Regulations.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Data is unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

The research team would like to sincerely thank those who took the time to participate in the interviews and the leaders of the An-Hoa-Thinh commune, Huong Son district, and Ha Tinh province for helping the research team complete the survey and provide valuable research results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chen, C.-l.; Zhang, H. Using emotion to evaluate our community: Exploring the relationship between the affective appraisal of community residents and the community environment. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2018, 14, 256–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Twohig-Bennett, C.; Jones, A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Stein, J. Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hunter, R.F.; Christian, H.; Veitch, J.; Astell-Burt, T.; Hipp, J.A.; Schipperijn, J. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: A systematic review and recommendations for future research. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 124, 246–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barnett, D.W.; Barnett, A.; Nathan, A.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Cerin, E.; Council on Environment and Physical Activity (CEPA)–Older Adults Working Group. Built environmental correlates of older adults’ total physical activity and walking: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Shanahan, D.F.; Franco, L.; Lin, B.B.; Gaston, K.J.; Fuller, R.A. The benefits of natural environments for physical activity. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 989–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jackson, L.E. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Anderson, E.; Durstine, J.L. Physical activity, exercise, and chronic diseases: A brief review. Sports Med. Health Sci. 2019, 1, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Warburton, D.E.; Nicol, C.W.; Bredin, S.S. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ 2006, 174, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Pressman, S.D.; Matthews, K.A.; Cohen, S.; Martire, L.M.; Scheier, M.; Baum, A.; Schulz, R. Association of enjoyable leisure activities with psychological and physical well-being. Psychosom. Med. 2009, 71, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Cradock, A.L.; Kawachi, I.; Colditz, G.A.; Gortmaker, S.L.; Buka, S.L. Neighborhood social cohesion and youth participation in physical activity in Chicago. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, X.; Cao, R.; Zheng, C.; Guo, Y.; Gong, W.; Wei, Z. How important is community participation to eco-environmental conservation in protected areas? From the perspective of predicting locals’ pro-environmental behaviours. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 139889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Manzo, L.C.; Perkins, D.D. Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. J. Plan. Lit. 2006, 20, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 359–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Matsuoka, R.H.; Kaplan, R. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Burk, B.N.; Shinew, K.J.; Son, J.S. Social problems that limit participation in recreation activities among rural residents. Leisure/Loisir 2015, 39, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tung, D.T.; Diem, L.T.T.; Luan, D.X.; Linh, N.H.K. The National Target Program for New Rural Development in Vietnam: An Understanding of People’s Participation and Its Determinants. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mauro, G. Rural–urban transition of Hanoi (Vietnam): Using Landsat imagery to map its recent peri-urbanization. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nguyen, T.A.; Gillen, J.; Rigg, J. Retaining the old countryside, embracing the new countryside: Vietnam’s new rural development program. J. Vietnam. Stud. 2021, 16, 77–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hau, P.X.; Tuan, V.A. The development of rural tourism in Vietnam: Objectives, practical experiences and challenges. Van Hien Univ. J. Sci. 2017, 5, 189–200. [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Khuc, Q.; Pham, L.; Tran, M.; Nguyen, T.; Tran, B.Q.; Hoang, T.; Ngo, T.; Tran, T.-D. Understanding vietnamese farmers’ perception toward forest importance and perceived willingness-to-participate in redd+ program: A case study in nghe an province. Forests 2021, 12, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hoang, Q.V. Determinants of the result of new rural development program in Vietnam. J. Econ. Dev. 2020, 22, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Do, D.T.; Mori, S. Sustainable rural settlement development in Vietnam: What lessons are gained from ethnic minority communities? J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2024, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nguyen, T.T.T. Reviews of Sustainable Rural Development in the Scope of Building New Rural Areas in Vietnam. Reg. Bus. Stud. 2020, 12, 77–91. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bratman, G.N.; Olvera-Alvarez, H.A.; Gross, J.J. The affective benefits of nature exposure. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2021, 15, e12630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bornioli, A.; Subiza-Pérez, M. Restorative urban environments for healthy cities: A theoretical model for the study of restorative experiences in urban built settings. Landsc. Res. 2023, 48, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brajša-Žganec, A.; Merkaš, M.; Šverko, I. Quality of life and leisure activities: How do leisure activities contribute to subjective well-being? Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 102, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhao, Y.; van den Berg, P.E.; Ossokina, I.V.; Arentze, T.A. How do urban parks, neighborhood open spaces, and private gardens relate to individuals’ subjective well-being: Results of a structural equation model. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 101, 105094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Besser, L.M.; Dannenberg, A.L. Walking to public transit: Steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 29, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Lurie, N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; De Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Remme, R.P.; Frumkin, H.; Guerry, A.D.; King, A.C.; Mandle, L.; Sarabu, C.; Bratman, G.N.; Giles-Corti, B.; Hamel, P.; Han, B. An ecosystem service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and health. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2018472118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Wang, H.-X.; Xu, W.; Pei, J.-J. Leisure activities, cognition and dementia. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Mol. Basis Dis. 2012, 1822, 482–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Su, S.; Shi, L.; Zheng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Huang, X.; Zhang, A.; Que, J.; Sun, X.; Shi, J.; Bao, Y. Leisure activities and the risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 2022, 99, e1651–e1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cho, D.; Post, J.; Kim, S.K. Comparison of passive and active leisure activities and life satisfaction with aging. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2018, 18, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kleiber, D.A.; Walker, G.J.; Mannell, R.C. A Social Psychology of Leisure; Venture Publishing Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Parker, S. The Sociology of Leisure; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. van Sluijs, E.M.; Ekelund, U.; Crochemore-Silva, I.; Guthold, R.; Ha, A.; Lubans, D.; Oyeyemi, A.L.; Ding, D.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet 2021, 398, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stevenson, N. The contribution of community events to social sustainability in local neighbourhoods. In Events and Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 38–53. [Google Scholar]
  41. Takiguchi, Y.; Matsui, M.; Kikutani, M.; Ebina, K. The relationship between leisure activities and mental health: The impact of resilience and COVID-19. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2023, 15, 133–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Adedeji, A. Social capital and migrants’ quality of life: A systematic narrative review. J. Int. Migr. Integr. 2021, 22, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Group, W. The Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives: Proceedings of the Joint-Meeting Organized by the World Health Organization and the Fondation IPSEN in Paris, July 2–3, 1993; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1994; pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, S. World Health Organization quality of life (WHOQOL) assessment. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 7866–7867. [Google Scholar]
  45. Marquez, D.X.; Aguiñaga, S.; Vásquez, P.M.; Conroy, D.E.; Erickson, K.I.; Hillman, C.; Stillman, C.M.; Ballard, R.M.; Sheppard, B.B.; Petruzzello, S.J. A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl. Behav. Med. 2020, 10, 1098–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Williams, A.J.; Maguire, K.; Morrissey, K.; Taylor, T.; Wyatt, K. Social cohesion, mental wellbeing and health-related quality of life among a cohort of social housing residents in Cornwall: A cross sectional study. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cummins, R.A. Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. J. Intellect. Disabil. Res. 2005, 49, 699–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. 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] [CrossRef]
  49. Sallis, J.F.; Floyd, M.F.; Rodríguez, D.A.; Saelens, B.E. Role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2012, 125, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Prüss-Ustün, A.; Bartram, J.; Clasen, T.; Colford, J.M., Jr.; Cumming, O.; Curtis, V.; Bonjour, S.; Dangour, A.D.; De France, J.; Fewtrell, L. Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in low-and middle-income settings: A retrospective analysis of data from 145 countries. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2014, 19, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Francis, J.; Giles-Corti, B.; Wood, L.; Knuiman, M. Creating sense of community: The role of public space. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cetinkaya, G.; Nese Sahin, F.; Yariz, K. Leisure satisfaction level of active and passive participation in outdoor recreation activities and its relationship with public health. Acta Medica Mediterr. 2017, 33, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008, 372, 1655–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Marquet, O.; Miralles-Guasch, C. Neighbourhood vitality and physical activity among the elderly: The role of walkable environments on active ageing in Barcelona, Spain. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 135, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Tang, D.; Gong, X.; Liu, M. Residents’ behavioral intention to participate in neighborhood micro-renewal based on an extended theory of planned behavior: A case study in Shanghai, China. Habitat Int. 2022, 129, 102672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ajzen, I. The Theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhang, H.; Nguyen-Dinh, N.; Pan, Z.-W. Using Structural Equation Modeling to Evaluate Tourists’ Revisit Intention toward Ecotourism Sites. Environ.-Behav. Proc. J. 2020, 5, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rita, P.; Oliveira, T.; Farisa, A. The impact of e-service quality and customer satisfaction on customer behavior in online shopping. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zhang, H.; Wu, Y.; Buhalis, D. A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit intention. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 8, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hossain, M.A. Community participation in disaster management: Role of social work to enhance participation. Sociology 2012, 159, 171. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pateman, C. Participatory democracy revisited. Perspect. Politics 2012, 10, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pecorella, R.F. Resident participation as agenda setting: A study of neighborhood-based development corporations. J. Urban Aff. 1985, 7, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chauhan, E. Residents’ motivations to participate in decision-making for cultural heritage tourism: Case study of New Delhi. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  66. Naing, L.; Winn, T.; Rusli, B. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Arch. Orofac. Sci. 2006, 1, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Ray, S.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. An introduction to structural equation modeling. In Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  68. Preacher, K.J.; Leonardelli, G.J. Calculation for the Sobel test. Retrieved January 2001, 20, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  69. Laddu, D.; Paluch, A.E.; LaMonte, M.J. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Underlying relationships between public urban green spaces and social cohesion: A systematic literature review. City Cult. Soc. 2021, 24, 100383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abd-Latif, R.; Nor, M.M.; Omar-Fauzee, M.S.; Ahmad, A.R.; Karim, F. Influence of physical environment towards leisure time physical activity (LTPA) among adolescents. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 38, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Salvador, E.P.; Florindo, A.A.; Reis, R.S.; Costa, E.F. Perception of the environment and leisure-time physical activity in the elderly. Rev. Saude Publica 2009, 43, 972–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Liu, W.; Dostdar-Rozbahani, A.; Tadayon-Zadeh, F.; Akbarpour-Beni, M.; Pourkiani, M.; Sadat-Razavi, F.; Barfi, V.; Shahedi, V. Insufficient level of physical activity and its effect on health costs in low-and middle-income countries. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 937196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Goldstein, D.S. Adrenaline and the Inner World: An Introduction to Scientific Integrative Medicine; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  75. Carron, A.V.; Shapcott, K.M.; Burke, S.M. Group cohesion in sport and exercise: Past, present and future. In Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology; Routledge: London, UK, 2007; pp. 135–158. [Google Scholar]
  76. Grossman, M.; Johns, A.; McDonald, K. “More than a game”: The impact of sport-based youth mentoring schemes on developing resilience toward violent extremism. Soc. Incl. 2014, 2, 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  77. Bird, E.L.; Ige, J.; Pilkington, P.; Pinto, A.; Petrokofsky, C.; Burgess-Allen, J. Built and natural environment planning principles for promoting health: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sugiyama, T.; Leslie, E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Owen, N. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Bonaiuto, M.; Fornara, F.; Bonnes, M. Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Arai, S.M.; Pedlar, A.M. Building communities through leisure: Citizen participation in a healthy communities initiative. J. Leis. Res. 1997, 29, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 11, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Guitart, D.; Pickering, C.; Byrne, J. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gutchess, A.; Rajaram, S. Consideration of culture in cognition: How we can enrich methodology and theory. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2023, 30, 914–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Veitch, J.; Ball, K.; Rivera, E.; Loh, V.; Deforche, B.; Best, K.; Timperio, A. What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 217, 104254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 01245 g001
Figure 1. Proposed structural model.
Figure 1. Proposed structural model.
Sustainability 17 01245 g001
Sustainability 17 01245 g002
Figure 2. Map of study site.
Figure 2. Map of study site.
Sustainability 17 01245 g002
Sustainability 17 01245 g003
Figure 3. Landscape and residents’ activities in the An-Hoa-Thinh commune.
Figure 3. Landscape and residents’ activities in the An-Hoa-Thinh commune.
Sustainability 17 01245 g003
Sustainability 17 01245 g004
Figure 4. The estimated structural model with total effect dimensions; Single arrows denote the causal relationship from one variable to another.
Figure 4. The estimated structural model with total effect dimensions; Single arrows denote the causal relationship from one variable to another.
Sustainability 17 01245 g004
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of respondents.
CharacteristicsN%CharacteristicsN%
Gender Occupation
Male25854.3Student153.2
Female21745.7Agriculture27457.7
Age Construction/manufacturing367.6
18~24173.6Business/service388.0
25~345712.0Pedagogy/office367.6
35~449018.9Retirement398.2
45~5410922.9Others377.8
55~6411424.0Residential time
above 658818.5Under 3 years51.1
Education level 3–5 years10.2
Primary/secondary school9920.85–10 years102.1
High school28459.810–15 years285.9
Undergraduate8417.715–20 years398.2
Postgraduate81.7Above 20 years39282.5
Table 2. Item and reliability analysis.
Table 2. Item and reliability analysis.
ConstructIndicatorItemMSD
Positive
environmental changes (α = 0.949)		Green areaA01—many green spaces4.330.735
A02—diversity of trees4.250.745
A03—well taken care of greenery4.060.841
Community layoutA04—accessing the buildings easily4.110.816
A05—reasonable layout of buildings3.920.864
A06—appropriate distance from the commune center4.140.884
Architecture scaleA07—reasonable distance between buildings3.860.843
A08—appropriate number of households4.000.857
A09—reasonable size of buildings3.860.847
AestheticsA10—attractiveness of buildings3.950.817
A11—pleasing colors of buildings3.980.785
A12—well-designed gates and fences4.010.824
Open spaceA13—harmony with surroundings of open spaces4.060.847
A14—appropriate size of open spaces3.950.847
Street landscapeA15—pleasing street landscape design4.030.820
A16—pleasing street material3.830.877
Leisure activities (α = 0.900)Physical activityB01—running3.760.678
B02—walking3.790.636
B03—playing ball games3.310.805
B04—playing badminton2.970.808
B05—dancing2.970.859
Mental activityB06—looking at people’s activities3.630.742
B07—looking at the landscape3.510.858
B08—playing chess games2.700.989
B09—singing3.330.771
Social activityB10—socializing3.670.725
B11—meetings3.340.762
B12—discussion2.900.862
B13—dating3.201.001
Improving quality of life (α = 0.899)Physical healthC01—satisfied with the energy for daily activities4.510.783
C02—satisfied with the ability to perform daily activities3.800.812
Mental healthC03—feeling the meaning of life3.770.834
C04—satisfied with myself3.690.778
C05—satisfied with spiritual life3.650.844
Social cohesionC06—satisfied with social relationships3.920.788
C07—satisfied with the support of the neighbors3.730.801
Residents’
participation (α = 0.824)		InterestD01—interest in contributing4.060.892
IntentionD02—intention to contribute4.010.971
WillingnessD03—willing to participate long term4.180.893
Note. M—mean; SD—standardized deviation.
Table 3. Convergent validity.
Table 3. Convergent validity.
Construct/IndicatorFactor
Loading		Composite
Reliability		Average
Variance
Extracted
Positive environmental changes 0.9330.699
Green area0.833
Community layout0.842
Architectural scale0.834
Aesthetics0.855
Open space0.825
Street landscape0.827
Leisure activities 0.8660.683
Physical activity0.807
Mental activity0.850
Social activity0.821
Improving quality of life 0.8930.736
Physical health0.822
Mental health0.872
Social cohesion0.879
Residents’ participation 0.8240.610
Interest0.793
Intention0.782
Willingness0.767
Note. The estimated model fits: X2 = 202.037, df = 84, X2/df = 2.405, CFI = 0.978, GFI = 0.945, NFI = 0.964, AGFI = 0.922, PNFI = 0.771, RMR = 0.014, RMSEA = 0.054, and p-value = 0.000.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
ConstructsMSVPECsIQoLLAsRP
Positive environmental changes (PECs)0.6770.836
Improving quality of life (IQoL)0.6580.8110.858
Leisure activities (LAs)0.6770.8230.8100.826
Residents’ participation (RP)0.5980.7730.7690.7610.781
Table 5. Standardized effect estimates in the structural equation modeling.
Table 5. Standardized effect estimates in the structural equation modeling.
PathDirect EffectMediating EffectEvaluation
H1PECs→LAs0.82 *** Supported
H2LAs→IQoL0.44 *** Supported
H3PECs→IQoL0.45 *** Supported
H4PECs→LAs→IQoL 0.36 *** (1)Supported
H5IQoL→RP0.31 *** Supported
H6LAs→RP0.25 ** Supported
H7LAs→IQoL→RP 0.14 *** (2)Supported
H8PECs→RP0.32 *** Supported
H9PECs→LAs→RP 0.21 ** (3)Supported
PECs→LAs→IQoL→RP 0.25 *** (4)
Note. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. H—hypothesis; PECs—positive environmental changes; LAs—leisure activities; IQoL—improving quality of life; RP—residents’ participation. Based on Sobel test [68], the indirect effects were examined as follows: (1) (0.82 × 0.44) = 0.36, z = 5.901, p = 0.000; (2) (0.44 × 0.31) = 0.14, z = 3.193, p = 0.001; (3) (0.82 × 0.25) = 0.21, z = 2.739, p = 0.006; (4) [(0.82 × 0.44) + 0.45] × 0.31 = 0.25, z = 3.215, p = 0.001.
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

Nguyen-Dinh, N.; Zhang, H. Do Positive Environmental Changes Impact Residents’ Intention of Rural Development? Role of Leisure and Quality of Life. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031245

AMA Style

Nguyen-Dinh N, Zhang H. Do Positive Environmental Changes Impact Residents’ Intention of Rural Development? Role of Leisure and Quality of Life. Sustainability. 2025; 17(3):1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031245

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen-Dinh, Nam, and Heng Zhang. 2025. "Do Positive Environmental Changes Impact Residents’ Intention of Rural Development? Role of Leisure and Quality of Life" Sustainability 17, no. 3: 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031245

APA Style

Nguyen-Dinh, N., & Zhang, H. (2025). Do Positive Environmental Changes Impact Residents’ Intention of Rural Development? Role of Leisure and Quality of Life. Sustainability, 17(3), 1245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031245

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