Access to Third Places: Key Determinants of Physical and Social Well-Being in Older Adults

Abstract

This study aimed to examine how access to and engagement with third places influence leisure-time physical activity and social capital among older adults. This study analyzed data from an online survey of 638 older adults aged 65 and above residing in Orlando, Florida, recruited through community collaborations, social media campaigns, and public outreach. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to examine the relationships between third-place accessibility, perceived built environments, and the dependent variables of leisure-time physical activity and social capital. A greater distance to the nearest third place was negatively associated with leisure-time physical activity, but not with social capital. The availability of third places within walking distance and the ease of walking access to third places positively influenced both outcomes. Engagement with third places was a significant factor for both leisure-time physical activity and social capital. Additionally, the availability and condition of sidewalks were significantly linked to leisure-time physical activity but showed no relationship with social capital. This study underscores the importance of third places in promoting leisure-time physical activity and social capital among older adults. The findings inform the design of age-friendly environments that support active lifestyles and foster social engagement.

1. Introduction

As populations age, encouraging physical activity and social engagement among older adults is increasingly important. Leisure-time physical activity supports physical and mental well-being, reducing chronic disease risk and enhancing quality of life [1]. Similarly, social capital—the networks, trust, and reciprocity that facilitate collective action—is associated with improved mental health, community resilience, and civic participation [2]. However, both outcomes often depend on the built environment and individual mobility patterns, which shape opportunities for community involvement.

Physical activity among older adults is influenced by environmental features such as walkability, sidewalk safety, and the availability of nearby recreational spaces [3,4]. These third places—like parks, community centers, and cafes—not only promote physical movement, but also serve as essential hubs for social interaction and community building [5].

Accessible third places enhance opportunities for informal social engagement, which is central to developing and maintaining social capital [2]. For older adults, these spaces help to mitigate the risks of isolation and shrinking networks due to retirement, loss of loved ones, or reduced mobility [6]. Regular interaction in these settings helps to combat loneliness and supports mental health and life satisfaction [7].

The usability of third places depends on multiple factors, including proximity, walkability, transportation options, and perceived safety [8]. Accessible third places that are designed with inclusivity in mind—featuring amenities like seating areas, shaded walkways, and step-free entry—are more likely to attract older adults and encourage their sustained engagement. However, not all third places are equally accessible, and various factors can significantly influence whether older adults can effectively utilize these spaces [9]. Distance to third places is a critical determinant; even a relatively short distance can pose a barrier for older adults, particularly those with limited mobility or chronic health conditions that affect their ability to walk or travel independently [10]. For older adults who no longer drive, inadequate transportation infrastructure can exacerbate social isolation by limiting their ability to reach third places, even if these destinations are located within a relatively short radius.

Walking access to third places plays a pivotal role in determining their accessibility, especially for older adults [11]. Third places that are within a comfortable walking distance are far more likely to be utilized by older individuals, as walking offers an affordable, independent, and health-promoting mode of travel. Conversely, destinations that require long walks from transit stops or involve navigating areas with insufficient pedestrian infrastructure can deter older adults, particularly those with mobility challenges or limited stamina [12]. Communities that prioritize continuous sidewalks, crosswalks, and shaded walkways help to foster independent, health-promoting travel [13].

The quality and condition of the surrounding environment also play a critical role [14]. For example, poorly maintained sidewalks, a lack of pedestrian crossings, and high-traffic areas may discourage older adults from traveling to nearby third places, even when the destinations are within walking distance. Similarly, perceived safety concerns, such as crimes, can further limit access, especially for older adults who may feel more vulnerable [15]. These barriers are compounded in areas where urban planning prioritizes automobile traffic over pedestrian-friendly design, leaving older adults dependent on private vehicles or less-than-ideal transit options.

Despite the recognized importance of third places as venues for social interaction and physical activity, there remains a significant gap in research examining their dual role in promoting both outcomes, particularly among older adults. This study contributes to the literature by addressing this gap and providing a comprehensive analysis of how access to and engagement with third places influence both leisure-time physical activity and social capital. Furthermore, it expands the focus to include neighborhood mobility patterns and perceived environmental factors, offering a holistic understanding of these relationships. Understanding how access to third places affects physical activity and social capital is critical for designing age-friendly environments that support aging in place.

This study investigates how access to and engagement with third places impact leisure-time physical activity and social capital among older adults, using survey data from 638 participants aged 65 and above in Orlando, Florida. The findings highlight that greater proximity to third places positively influences both physical activity and social capital, while access to sidewalks is linked to increased physical activity. This research reinforces the importance of third places in promoting active aging and social engagement, aligning with the growing body of literature on the benefits of aging in place.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources

This study utilized data collected via an online survey administered to 638 older adults aged 65 and over, all residing within the area of Orlando, Florida. The eligibility criteria required participants to be at least 65 years old and to have a primary residence in Orlando, ensuring that the sample reflected the experiences of older adults in an urban environment. This study aimed to provide targeted insights into how third-place accessibility, neighborhood mobility, and environmental factors influence leisure-time physical activity and social capital among older urban residents.

Recruitment took place from July to September 2024, using a multifaceted approach to engage a diverse sample of older adults. Collaborations with community centers and senior organizations provided trusted outreach channels, while targeted social media campaigns extended our reach through demographic-specific advertising. In-person efforts included distributing flyers in public spaces like libraries, recreation centers, senior housing, and healthcare offices to engage those less active online. These materials clearly outlined the study details, eligibility, and participation steps, ensuring accessibility for individuals with varying levels of technological proficiency.

The survey aimed to gather comprehensive data on various aspects of the participants’ lives, including their socio-demographic profiles, frequency of visits to third places, perceptions of third-place accessibility, evaluations of the built environment, self-reported leisure-time physical activity, levels of social capital, and patterns of mobility frequency and independence. To ensure that the study adhered to ethical guidelines, approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Central Florida. This approval confirmed that all research protocols were designed to protect the participants’ safety and privacy, and that informed consent was obtained from every participant prior to their involvement in the study.

2.2. Variables and Measurements

Table 1. Variables and measurements.

Domain	Variable	Mean (SDa) or % of “1” for Binary Variables
Leisure-time physical activity	Frequency of performing moderate leisure-time physical activities (continuous; times per week)	3.52 (2.18)
Social capital	Support: people in the neighborhood help one another (continuous; 1–5 [1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree])	3.24 (1.91)
	Trust: people in the neighborhood can be counted on or trusted (continuous; 1–5 [1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree])	3.14 (1.88)
	Cohesion: the neighborhood is close-knit and connected (continuous; 1–5 [1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree])	2.95 (2.02)
Access to third place	Distance to the nearest third places (continuous; 1–5 [1 = less than 400 m; 2 = 401 to 800 m; 3 = 801 to 1200 m; 4 = 1201 to 1600 m; 5 = more than 1600 m])	2.58 (1.54)
	The availability of third places within walking distance (<10 min) (binary; 1 = yes)	23%
	Easy access to third places by walking (continuous; 1–5 [1 = very difficult; 2 = difficult; 3 = neutral; 4 = easy; 5 = very easy])	3.28 (1.14)
Third-place engagement	Frequency of third-place visits (continuous; 1–5 [1 = less than once a week; 2 = once a week; 3 = 2–3 times a week; 4 = 4 to 6 times a week; 5 = daily])	2.99 (1.52)
Perceived built environments	Overall walkability of your neighborhood (continuous; 1–5 [1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = fair; 4 = good; 5 = excellent])	3.29 (1.32)
	Safety perception when walking in the neighborhood (continuous; 1–5 [1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = most of the time; 5 = always])	3.76 (1.48)
	Availability and condition of sidewalks in the neighborhood (continuous; 1–5 [1 = non-existent; 2 = sporadically available; 3 = present but in poor condition; 4 = generally well-maintained but with some issues; 5 = well-maintained and fully accessible])	3.15 (1.39)
	Presence of obstacles (i.e., construction, debris, or parked vehicles) when walking in the neighborhood (continuous; 1–5 [1 = very frequently; 2 = frequently; 3 = occasionally; 4 = rarely; 5 = never])	2.96 (1.40)
	Presence of tree shading when walking in the neighborhood (continuous; 1–5 [1 = no shading; 2 = minimal shading; 3 = moderate shading; 4 = substantial shading; 5 = complete shading])	3.19 (1.38)
Socio-demographic characteristics	Age of respondents (continuous; 1–5 [1 = 65–70; 2 = 71–75; 3 = 76–80; 4 = 81–85; 5 = 86+])	3.08 (1.39)
	Gender of respondent (binary; 1 = male)	46%
	Race of respondent (binary; 1 = white)	52%
	Ethnicity of respondent (binary; 1 = Hispanic or Latino)	35%
	Education level (continuous; 1–5 [1 = no formal education; 2 = some high school; 3 = high school graduate; 4 = some college or technical school; 5 = college graduate or higher])	3.02 (1.46)
	Living alone (binary; 1 = yes)	36%
	Marital status (binary; 1 = married)	46%
	Car ownership (continuous)	0.99 (0.85)
	Significant life events (marriage or partnership, divorce or separation, death of a family member or close friend, major illness or injury, retirement, moving or relocation) in the past year (binary; 1 = yes)	31%
Mobility frequency	During the past four weeks, how often did you go to places in your neighborhood, other than your own yard or apartment building? (1 = less than one time per week, 2 = less than one to three times per week, 3 = less than four to six times per week, 4 = daily)	2.25 (2.01)
	During the past four weeks, how often did you go to places outside your neighborhood, but within your town? (1 = less than one time per week, 2 = less than one to three times per week, 3 = less than four to six times per week, 4 = daily)	2.01 (1.50)
Mobility independence	During the past four weeks, when you went to places in your neighborhood, other than your own yard or apartment building, did you use aids or equipment? Do you need help from another person? (No equipment or personal assistance = 2, Equipment only = 1.5, Personal assistance = 1)	1.65 (1.52)

summarizes the study variables along with their measurements and descriptive statistics. The analysis centered on the following two primary dependent variables: moderate leisure-time physical activity and social capital. Moderate leisure-time physical activity was defined as activities that caused light sweating and a moderate increase in breathing or heart rate [16]. The participants reported their weekly frequency of engaging in these activities, providing data on how often they participated in such moderate-intensity exercise. This measure was crucial in assessing the extent to which older adults remained physically active, as regular participation in moderate exercise is associated with numerous health benefits, including improved cardiovascular health, mobility, and overall well-being. Understanding these activity patterns helps to inform policies and urban planning strategies aimed at promoting active aging and fostering environments that encourage physical engagement among older populations.

Social capital was assessed using the following three key dimensions: support, trust, and cohesion, based on the framework proposed by Juster and Suzman [17]. The dimension of support was measured by asking the participants to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, “People in my neighborhood are willing to help each other”. Trust was evaluated through the participants’ perceptions of the reliability and trustworthiness of their neighbors. Cohesion was captured by their agreement with the statement, “There is a strong sense of closeness in my neighborhood”. Responses for each dimension were collected on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), providing a standardized approach to quantify perceptions of social capital. This measurement approach aligns with the argument that social capital is a multidimensional construct influencing community engagement and well-being. By quantifying support, trust, and cohesion, the study aims to illustrate how these elements collectively shape neighborhood interactions and, in turn, impact residents’ social and physical activity levels.

This study defined third places as any location outside the home or workplace that individuals visit at least once a week for social interaction. This definition draws on established concepts in the literature [18], highlighting the following two essential characteristics: (1) the regular and consistent use of a space beyond home and work and (2) its role as a casual setting that fosters informal social interactions. By focusing on these attributes, the study encapsulates the core idea of third places as environments that promote community building and enhance social connectivity.

This study measured access to third places using three distinct variables to capture various dimensions of accessibility. First, distance to the nearest third place was assessed as a continuous variable on a 1–5 scale, where 1 represented a distance of less than 400 m, 2 corresponded to 401–800 m, 3 indicated 801–1200 m, 4 represented 1201–1600 m, and 5 denoted distances greater than 1600 m. This variable reflects physical proximity and the ease with which individuals can reach these spaces. Second, the availability of third places within walking distance was measured as a binary variable, with participants indicating whether they had access to third places within a 10-min walking distance (1 = yes and 0 = no). This measure emphasizes the convenience of having nearby third places that are easily reachable on foot. Lastly, ease of access to third places by walking was evaluated as a continuous variable on a 1–5 scale, ranging from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy), capturing the participants’ perceptions of how easily they could access third places on foot. Together, these variables provide a comprehensive understanding of the physical and perceived accessibility of third places for participants. This study offers a nuanced understanding of how proximity, availability, and ease of access shape individuals’ ability to utilize third places. This multidimensional approach highlights the importance of not only geographic distance, but also perceived walkability in fostering social engagement and community participation.

Third-place engagement was measured using the frequency of visits to third places, assessed as a continuous variable ranging from 1 to 5. The participants were asked to report how often they visited a third place, with the response options corresponding to specific frequency intervals, as follows: 1 = less than once a week, 2 = once a week, 3 = 2–3 times a week, 4 = 4–6 times a week, and 5 = daily. This approach provides a detailed assessment of how frequently older adults interact with these spaces. The scale enables a nuanced analysis of the potential benefits of regular third-place visits on social connectedness and well-being.

The study included several variables to measure perceptions of the built environment, each assessed on a continuous scale ranging from 1 to 5. The overall walkability of the neighborhood captured the participants’ general assessment of their neighborhood’s walkability, with responses ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Safety perception when walking in the neighborhood measured how safe the participants felt while walking, with options ranging from 1 (never feeling safe) to 5 (always feeling safe). The availability and condition of sidewalks assessed the presence and quality of sidewalks in the neighborhood, ranging from 1 (non-existent) to 5 (well-maintained and fully accessible). The participants also reported the presence of obstacles encountered while walking, such as construction, debris, and parked vehicles, with responses ranging from 1 (very frequently) to 5 (never encountering obstacles). Lastly, the presence of tree shading during walks in the neighborhood evaluated the degree of shading provided by trees, ranging from 1 (no shading) to 5 (complete shading). These measures collectively provide a comprehensive assessment of how older adults perceive their built environment and its impact on mobility and physical activity. By capturing walkability, safety, infrastructure quality, and environmental features, the study highlights key factors that influence active aging and equitable access to walkable spaces.

Socio-demographic characteristics were assessed using a range of variables designed to capture key aspects of the respondents’ personal and social contexts. Age was measured as a continuous variable, categorized into five groups ranging from 65–70 (1) to 86 and above (5). Gender was recorded as a binary variable, with 1 indicating male respondents. Similarly, race and ethnicity were also measured as binary variables, with 1 representing respondents identifying as white and Hispanic or Latino, respectively. Educational attainment was measured on a continuous scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated no formal education and 5 represented college graduation or higher levels of education. Living arrangements were captured through a binary variable, with 1 indicating respondents who lived alone. Marital status was similarly recorded as a binary variable, where 1 signified respondents who were married. These socio-demographic variables provide a foundational understanding of how individual characteristics may influence leisure-time physical activity and social capital among older adults. By systematically categorizing these factors, this study aims to examine potential disparities and interactions that shape aging experiences in different social and environmental contexts.

Car ownership was included as a continuous variable to assess the availability of private transportation. Lastly, the respondents were asked whether they had experienced any significant life events in the past year, including marriage or partnership, divorce or separation, the death of a family member or close friend, a major illness or injury, retirement, or relocation. This was captured as a binary variable, with 1 indicating the occurrence of at least one such event. These variables provide a comprehensive socio-demographic profile of the respondents, enabling deeper analysis of their interactions with third places, physical activity, and social capital.

Mobility frequency was assessed using two survey questions that captured the participants’ movement patterns within and outside their neighborhoods over the past four weeks [19]. The first question focused on neighborhood mobility, asking the participants how often they visited places within their neighborhood other than their own yard or apartment building. Responses were recorded on a four-point scale, as follows: 1 = less than one time per week, 2 = one to three times per week, 3 = four to six times per week, and 4 = daily. The second question measured mobility outside the neighborhood, asking the participants how frequently they visited places within their town but outside their immediate neighborhood. The same four-point scale was used for consistency. These measures provide a nuanced understanding of the participants’ local and town-wide mobility patterns, offering insights into their engagement with their surroundings and potential opportunities for physical activity and social interactions. By capturing both neighborhood and town-wide mobility, these measures highlight the extent to which older adults remain engaged with their environments. Understanding these movement patterns is crucial for assessing how mobility influences opportunities for physical activity and social interactions, which are essential for fostering active and connected communities.

Mobility independence was assessed through a self-reported survey question that asked the participants about their use of aids, equipment, or personal assistance when traveling to places within their neighborhood, excluding their own yard or apartment building [19]. The participants were asked, “During the past four weeks, when you went to places in your neighborhood, other than your own yard or apartment building, did you use aids or equipment? Do you need help from another person?” Responses were categorized into the following three levels of mobility independence: those who required neither equipment nor personal assistance were scored as 2, individuals who used equipment such as canes or walkers but did not need personal assistance were scored as 1.5, and those who relied on personal assistance were scored as 1. This measurement allows for a more detailed examination of how varying levels of mobility independence influenced the participants’ ability to navigate their neighborhoods. By distinguishing between different degrees of assistance, the study provides a clearer understanding of mobility-related barriers and their potential impacts on social engagement and physical activity.

2.3. Statistical Analyzes

Two distinct models were constructed to analyze the dependent variables, moderate leisure-time physical activity and social capital. Social capital was operationalized as a composite measure, calculated by averaging the following three primary dimensions: support, trust, and cohesion. To examine the relationships between the independent variables and these continuous dependent variables, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was employed.

To enhance the reliability and precision of the regression results, mean centering was applied to the independent variables [20]. This process involved subtracting the mean value of each independent variable from its individual data points. By reducing multicollinearity—a condition where independent variables are highly correlated—mean centering preserved the validity of the regression analysis without altering the fundamental relationships within the data.

3. Results

Table 2. Results of the analysis on the relationship between moderate leisure-time physical activity and social capital.

Variables	Leisure-Time Physical Activity		Social Capital
	β	SE	β	SE
Access to third places
Distance to the nearest third places (continuous)	−0.13 *	0.07	−0.08	0.07
The availability of third places within walking distance (yes)	0.45 **	0.05	0.34 *	0.09
Easy access to third places by walking (continuous)	0.23 *	0.10	0.18 *	0.04
Third-place engagement
Frequency of third-place visits (continuous)	0.18 *	0.08	0.15 *	0.06
Perceived built environments
Overall walkability (continuous)	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.03
Safety perception (continuous)	0.03	0.03	0.05	0.04
Availability and condition of sidewalks (continuous)	0.14 *	0.02	0.09	0.08
Presence of obstacles (continuous)	0.06	0.07	0.05	0.05
Presence of tree shading (continuous)	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.03
Socio-demographic characteristics
Age (continuous)	−0.08	0.10	0.06	0.06
Gender (male)	0.12 *	0.04	−0.13 *	0.05
Race (white)	0.10	0.09	0.07	0.06
Ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino)	−0.06	0.07	−0.05	0.05
Education level (continuous)	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.09
Living alone (yes)	−0.06	0.05	−0.06	0.05
Marital status (married)	0.12	0.12	0.07	0.07
Car ownership (continuous)	0.10	0.09	−0.08	0.08
Significant life events (yes)	−0.09	0.08	−0.07	0.07
Mobility frequency
Go to places in the neighborhood (continuous)	0.13 *	0.05	0.12 *	0.05
Go to places outside neighborhood (continuous)	0.09	0.08	0.08	0.08
Mobility independence
No equipment or personal assistance (continuous)	0.14 *	0.05	0.08	0.08
R-squared	0.29		0.27

SE: Standard error. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

presents the results of the analysis on the impact of the relationship between access to third places, third-place engagement, perceived built environments, socio-demographic characteristics, mobility frequency, and mobility independence on leisure-time physical activity and social capital. In terms of access to third places, the proximity and availability of third places were significant factors for both leisure-time physical activity and social capital. A greater distance to the nearest third place was negatively associated with leisure-time physical activity (β = −0.13, p < 0.05), but showed no significant relationship with social capital (β = −0.08). Conversely, the availability of third places within walking distance was positively associated with both outcomes, with effects on leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.45, p < 0.01) and social capital (β = 0.34, p < 0.05). Ease of access to third places by walking was also positively associated with both leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.23, p < 0.05) and social capital (β = 0.18, p < 0.05). Engagement with third places, measured by the frequency of visits, was a significant factor for both leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) and social capital (β = 0.15, p < 0.05).

Among perceived built environments, the availability and condition of sidewalks were significantly associated with leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.14, p < 0.05), but not with social capital (β = 0.09). Other factors, such as overall walkability, safety perception, the presence of obstacles, and tree shading, were not significant variables for either outcome.

Gender emerged as a significant factor, with males being more likely to engage in leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.12, p < 0.05), but less likely to report higher social capital (β = −0.13, p < 0.05). Other socio-demographic characteristics, including age, race, ethnicity, education level, living alone, marital status, car ownership, and significant life events, were not significant in either model.

Neighborhood mobility frequency was positively associated with both leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.13, p < 0.05) and social capital (β = 0.12, p < 0.05). Mobility independence, specifically not requiring equipment or personal assistance, was significantly associated with leisure-time physical activity (β = 0.14, p < 0.05), but not with social capital (β = 0.08).

4. Discussion

The findings reveal that a greater distance to the nearest third place is significantly associated with reduced leisure-time physical activity, indicating that physical proximity to these spaces plays a critical role in encouraging active lifestyles. This result aligns with previous studies emphasizing the importance of accessibility in promoting physical activity, as longer distances may create barriers such as increased time and effort required to engage in leisure activities [21]. However, the lack of a significant relationship between distance to third places and social capital suggests that social interactions and community bonds may depend less on geographic proximity and more on other factors, such as the quality of social networks or the frequency of intentional gatherings [22]. These findings highlight the need for urban planners to consider the spatial distribution of third places to support physical activity while also exploring complementary strategies to strengthen social capital, such as fostering programs and events that encourage community engagement regardless of location.

The availability of third places within walking distance is positively associated with both outcomes. These results emphasize the importance of having accessible community spaces that serve as hubs for physical activity and social engagement. The association with physical activity may be attributed to the reduced effort and time required to engage in recreational activities when third places are located nearby. For social capital, the proximity of third places likely facilitates spontaneous interactions and the development of trust and social networks. These findings align with prior research underscoring the role of built environments in shaping health and community outcomes [23], suggesting that urban design interventions aimed at increasing the availability of third places could simultaneously enhance individual well-being and strengthen community cohesion.

The findings highlight the significant role of walkable access to third places in fostering both leisure-time physical activity and social capital. The positive association between ease of access to third places by walking and leisure-time physical activity aligns with the existing literature emphasizing that pedestrian-friendly environments encourage active behaviors by reducing physical and psychological barriers to outdoor activities [24]. Additionally, the association with social capital underscores the value of accessible third places as hubs for community interaction and relationship building. These results suggest that neighborhoods designed with enhanced walkability—featuring safe, connected pathways and conveniently located third places—can serve as vital assets in promoting physical activity and fostering a sense of community. Such findings reinforce the need for urban planning and public health policies that integrate walkability as a key strategy to improve both individual health outcomes and social cohesion.

This finding highlights the importance of not only the physical presence of third places, but also the extent to which individuals actively engage with these spaces. Regular visits to third places may provide opportunities for physical activity, such as walking to and from these locations or participating in recreational activities within them, thereby promoting an active lifestyle. Additionally, frequent engagement fosters social interactions, contributing to stronger social networks, trust, and a sense of belonging within the community. These results align with previous research emphasizing the role of third places as hubs for both social and physical well-being [25]. Policymakers and urban planners should consider strategies to encourage the frequent use of third places, such as organizing community events and ensuring that these spaces are inviting and easily accessible. By focusing on active engagement, communities can maximize the potential benefits of third places for both individual and collective well-being. Additionally, community work with and for older adults focuses on fostering inclusion, social participation, and active living within neighborhoods. A key strategy is promoting the shared use of third places that serve as informal hubs for connection and engagement. These spaces support intergenerational interaction, reduce isolation, and strengthen social capital. By encouraging neighborhood-based activities and co-production, community work empowers older adults to remain active contributors to their communities, aligning with age-friendly and aging-in-place initiatives.

The findings indicate that the availability and condition of sidewalks are significant factors for leisure-time physical activity, suggesting that well-maintained and accessible sidewalks play a critical role in encouraging physical activity by providing safe and convenient spaces for walking and other outdoor activities. This aligns with previous research emphasizing the importance of pedestrian infrastructure in fostering active lifestyles [26]. However, the lack of a significant relationship between sidewalk conditions and social capital suggests that while sidewalks facilitate movement and activity, they may not directly influence opportunities for social interaction or the formation of community ties. Broader environmental factors such as overall walkability, safety perception, the presence of obstacles, and tree shading are not significant predictors of either outcome. This may imply that specific, tangible infrastructure elements like sidewalks have a more immediate impact on physical activity than broader, more subjective perceptions of the environment. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions focused on improving sidewalk quality to promote physical activity, while recognizing that fostering social capital may require different strategies, such as creating shared public spaces designed explicitly for social engagement.

Males are more likely to engage in leisure-time physical activity, suggesting potential gender differences in preferences or opportunities for recreational activities. This aligns with previous studies that have identified higher participation rates among men in structured and unstructured physical activities, possibly due to sociocultural norms or a greater availability of leisure time for men [27]. However, the lower levels of social capital reported by males point to a potential trade-off, where increased physical activity may not necessarily translate into stronger social networks or community engagement. This could reflect differences in the ways men and women build and maintain social connections, with women often engaging in more relationship-oriented activities that foster social capital [28]. Other socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, race, ethnicity, education level, and marital status, are not significant factors, suggesting that their influence on these outcomes may be less pronounced in this context.

Neighborhood mobility frequency, reflecting how often individuals move within their local area, is positively associated with both outcomes. This underscores the importance of local activity patterns, as frequent neighborhood mobility may provide greater opportunities for physical activity while also facilitating social interactions that build social capital [10]. Additionally, mobility independence, defined as the ability to move without requiring equipment or assistance, is significantly associated with leisure-time physical activity, but not with social capital. This suggests that while physical independence directly supports active engagement in leisure activities, it may not be as critical for forming or maintaining social connections, which can occur even with mobility constraints through other means, such as digital communication or localized interactions. Together, these findings suggest that fostering neighborhood mobility and supporting mobility independence through accessible infrastructure and inclusive design can play a crucial role in promoting physical activity and enhancing social well-being in communities.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to the growing body of research on the roles of third places, neighborhood mobility, and built environment characteristics in promoting leisure-time physical activity and social capital. This research offers a nuanced understanding of how access to third places, mobility patterns, and perceived environmental factors collectively influence physical activity and social connectedness. The findings provide valuable insights for urban planners, public health practitioners, and policymakers aiming to design environments that foster healthier and more socially cohesive communities.

The results revealed several key relationships. The availability of third places within walking distance and the ease of access by walking were strongly associated with both leisure-time physical activity and social capital, underscoring the importance of accessible, walkable environments. Additionally, neighborhood mobility frequency emerged as a significant variable for both outcomes, indicating that frequent local movement can enhance opportunities for physical activity and social interactions. While mobility independence was associated with leisure-time physical activity, it did not significantly influence social capital, suggesting that physical activity and social connectedness may have distinct enabling factors. These findings highlight the interconnected yet unique pathways through which environmental and mobility factors shape physical and social well-being.

The implications of this study are multifaceted. For urban planners and policymakers, the findings emphasize the importance of designing walkable neighborhoods with accessible third places and inclusive infrastructure that promotes mobility independence. Investments in pedestrian-friendly pathways, shaded sidewalks, and strategically located third places can simultaneously encourage active lifestyles and enhance social cohesion. Public health initiatives should integrate these findings by promoting the frequent use of third places through community programming and events. Furthermore, tailored interventions for populations with mobility limitations could help to bridge gaps in access to physical activity opportunities while finding alternative means to support social capital.

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations. The cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between the variables. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine how changes in third-place accessibility, mobility patterns, and built environments impact leisure-time physical activity and social capital over time. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported data for some variables, which may be subject to recall or social desirability biases. Future research could incorporate objective measures of mobility and environmental characteristics to validate these findings. One limitation of this study is the absence of a comparison group, as the survey data were collected exclusively from older adults. Without data from younger populations, it is difficult to determine whether the observed relationships between neighborhood social cohesion, physical activity, and social capital are unique to older adults or generalized across age groups. Future research should consider incorporating a broader age range to examine potential differences and better understand how these factors interact across the lifespan. These findings demonstrate a connection between age, leisure-time physical activity, and social capital; however, these relationships are not necessarily exclusive to older adults. Similar trends may be observed across different age groups, indicating the potential for broader applicability. Nevertheless, this study prioritizes older adults due to the distinct challenges they face and the critical importance of policies that support active aging. Moreover, while the research examines third-place engagement and its relationship with leisure-time physical activity and social capital, it does not explicitly account for social connections with friends and relatives. Personal relationships play a crucial role in shaping social capital, and future studies could incorporate these connections to provide a more comprehensive understanding of social engagement among older adults. Additionally, this study does not distinguish between retired and non-retired participants or account for professional social capital derived from workplace interactions. Employment status could influence social engagement patterns, particularly for those who maintain professional networks outside their residential communities. Future research could explore how workplace-based social capital interacts with third-place engagement. Furthermore, this study did not include mental health measures, such as social anxiety or depression, which could significantly impact an individual’s likelihood of engaging with third places. Understanding the relationship between mental health and third-place engagement is crucial for developing more inclusive and accessible community planning initiatives. Future research should explore how psychological well-being influences participation in third places and identify strategies to support older adults facing mental health challenges. Lastly, the generalizability of the results may be limited to similar urban contexts, and further research is needed to explore these relationships in diverse geographic and cultural settings. While Orlando’s built environment and policies may differ from those of other regions, the study’s findings on the importance of third places, walkability, and social engagement for older adults can inform urban planning and policy efforts across the country. The findings of this study align with broader discussions on aging-friendly environments in the U.S., where cities are increasingly recognizing the importance of walkable neighborhoods, social infrastructure, and accessible third places for older adults. While Orlando offers community programs and public spaces that encourage active aging, challenges such as transportation access and suburban sprawl remain, reflecting issues seen in many other U.S. metropolitan areas. These results highlight the need for cities nationwide to integrate age-friendly urban planning strategies that promote social engagement and physical activity, ensuring that older adults can maintain their independence and well-being.