Efficacy of built environment on perceived competence, autonomy, regulation, and physical activity engagement: A quantitative sustainability perspective
Md. Dilsad Ahmed
Abstract. The built environment is crucial for promoting sustainable physical activity (PA) by providing safe, accessible, and appealing spaces that encourage exercise for all students, regardless of background or ability. This study aimed to investigate whether the built environment (BE) influences students’ satisfaction with moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (measured through perceived competence (PC), perceived autonomy (P-Au), and perceived regulation (PR). It also sought to measure specific variations explaining these influences and determine if this process differs between sexes. The study includes 600 university students (456 males: age20.74 ± 3.07, 144 females: age20.77 ± 3.47) who were categorized by gender and type of sport (157 in individual sports, 296 in team sports, and 147 for other kinds of sports). Various statistical analyses were used to analyze the data, including correlations, regression, and MANOVA. Additionally, to explore the relationships between variables and assess the model fit comprehensively, rigorous Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed. The built environment is positively correlated with PC (r = .351), PA (r = .478), and PR (r = .390) significantly influence perceptions of the built environment. Regression analysis explains 27.9% of the variance in BE (R² = .279, p < .001) by the predictors, including PA (β = .350), PR (β = .206), and PC (β = .089). MVPA did not significantly predict BE (β = -.033, p = .343). MANOVA reveals significant main effects for gender, sports type, and their interaction on several variables, with notable effects for sports type on BE, PC, PA, and PR. The interaction between gender and sports type significantly affects MVPA. These results underscore the importance of perceptions of autonomy and relatedness in influencing BE and highlight significant differences in psychological and behavioral variables based on gender and type of sport. The total sample indicates a strong to excellent model with chi-square = 1.275 with a CMIN/DF ratio of 1.275, TLI = .997, CFI = 1.000, and RMSEA = .018. Furthermore, both male and female subgroups also show an excellent fit. A supportive built environment enhances students' perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness, promoting sustainable physical activity. Tailored strategies are needed to address the diverse needs of student populations, ensuring inclusive and effective promotion of physical activity for all.
Keywords
Built Environment, Sustainable Physical Activity, Perceived Competence, Perceived Autonomy, Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA)
Published online 2/25/2025, 9 pages
Copyright © 2025 by the author(s)
Published under license by Materials Research Forum LLC., Millersville PA, USA
Citation: Md. Dilsad Ahmed, Efficacy of built environment on perceived competence, autonomy, regulation, and physical activity engagement: A quantitative sustainability perspective, Materials Research Proceedings, Vol. 48, pp 874-882, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21741/9781644903414-95
The article was published as article 95 of the book Civil and Environmental Engineering for Resilient, Smart and Sustainable Solutions
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
References
[1]. J. F. Sallis, K. Glanz, The role of built environments in physical activity, eating, and obesity in childhood, The Future of Children 16 (1) (2006) 89-108, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2006.0009.
[2]. Y. K. W. Ho, D. M. Ahmed, Klaudia, Development and validation of an instrument to assess QPE among Asian professionals, Cogent Education 8 (1) (2020) 1864082, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1864082.
[3]. S. Barradas, D. Lucumí, D. N. Guzmán-Tordecilla, J. Young, D. Pinzón, Built environment interventions and physical activity levels: A systematic review, Biomédica 42 (Sp. 1) (2022) 79–88, https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.6113.
[4]. A. Tcymbal, Y. Demetriou, A. Kelso et al., Effects of the built environment on physical activity: a systematic review of longitudinal studies taking sex/gender into account, Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 25 (2020) 75, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12199-020-00915-z.
[5]. S. J. Biddle, M. Asare, Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews, British Journal of Sports Medicine 45 (11) (2011) 886-895, https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090185.
[6]. T. L. McKenzie, M. A. Lounsbery, The pill not taken: Revisiting physical education teacher effectiveness in a public health context, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 85 (3) (2014) 287-292, https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.931203.
[7]. R. M. Ryan, E. L. Deci, Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being, American Psychologist 55 (1) (2000) 68-78, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
[8]. A. A. Lake, T. G. Townshend, Exploring the built environment, physical activity and related behaviours of young people attending school, college and those not in employment, Journal of Public Health 35 (1) (2012) 57–66, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fds059.
[9]. N. Chawla, T. Thaksaphon Thamarangsi, Effectiveness of School Built Environment on Physical Activity in Children: a Systematic Review, Journal of Health Science of Thailand (2014) 739–752, https://thaidj.org/index.php/JHS/article/view/742.
[10]. A. A. Peachey, S. L. Baller, Perceived Built Environment Characteristics of On-Campus and Off-Campus Neighborhoods Associated With Physical Activity of College Students, Journal of American College Health 63 (5) (2015) 337–342, https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2015.1015027.
[11]. Z. Lu, Z. Li, C. Mao, Y. Tan, X. Zhang, L. Zhang, W. Zhu, Y. Sun, Correlation between Campus-Built Environment and Physical Fitness in College Students in Xi’an—A GIS Approach, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (13) (2022) 7948, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137948.
[12]. T. Althoff, B. Ivanovic, J. L. Hicks, S. L. Delp, A. C. King, J. Leskovec, Countrywide natural experiment reveals impact of built environment on physical activity, ArXiv.org, (2024) https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04557.
[13]. Y. Zhang, M. Koene, C. Chen, C. Wagenaar, S. A. Reijneveld, Associations between the built environment and physical activity in children, adults and older people: A narrative review of reviews, Preventive Medicine 180 (2024) 107856, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107856.
[14]. P. Iamtrakul, S. Chayphong, Analyzing the link between built environment and physical activity: a spatial study in suburban area, Frontiers in Built Environment (2024) 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2024.1420020.
[15]. P. M. Wilson, W. T. Rogers, W. M. Rodgers, T. C. Wild, The psychological need satisfaction in exercise scale, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 28 (3) (2006) 231–251, https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.28.3.231.
[16]. G. Godin, The Godin-Shephard leisure-time physical activity questionnaire, Health & Fitness Journal of Canada 4 (1) (2011) 18–22.
[17]. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed., Guilford Press, (2016).
[18]. B. M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed., Routledge, (2016).
[19]. L. T. Hu, P. M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1) (1999) 1-55.
[20]. K. Schermelleh-Engel, H. Moosbrugger, H. Müller, Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures, Methods of Psychological Research Online 8 (2) (2003) 23-74.
[21]. N. Ntoumanis, M. Standage, Motivation in physical education classes, School Field 7 (2) (2009) 194–202, https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104324.
[22]. H. Cho, R. S. B. Hussain, H.-K. Kang, The Role of Social Support and Its Influence on Exercise participation: the Perspective of self-determination Theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior, The Social Science Journal 60 (4) (2020) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1756176.
[23]. R. J. Vallerand, G. F. Losier, An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 11 (1) (1999) 142-169, https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209908402956.
[24]. A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles, American Psychologist 54 (6) (1999) 408-423, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408.
[25]. R. J. Vallerand, A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for sport and physical activity, In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise (2006) 263-319, Human Kinetics, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781718206632.ch-017.
[26]. M. R. Weiss, E. Ferrer-Caja, Motivational orientations and sport behavior, In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport Psychology (2002) 101-182, Human Kinetics.
