2.1. Associations between Living Environment and Physical Activity or Sport

The location of our living environment and the layout of the neighborhood are of major importance regarding our willingness to exercise. When sports facilities are eye-catching in a given neighborhood, inhabitants will be more likely to engage in sport simply due to the visual stimulus [33]. Otherwise, people will easily find an excuse to avoid doing so; for example, many complained of traffic issues hindering them when wanting to join sports programs [34]. The availability of sports facilities largely depends on the socioeconomic status of the examined living environment: the lower the status, the lower the availability of sports facilities was; also, the higher status the neighborhood had, the higher the availability of sports facilities, especially privately owned and seasonal sports facilities, was [35]. In districts with a worse social environment, community spaces that can also be used for doing sports are in worse conditions, and they are less clean and less well-maintained compared to richer city districts; consequently, the inhabitants are less satisfied with these services and show a decreasing tendency towards being engaged in some sport [36]. At the same time, it was also observed that children coming from families of lower socioeconomic status play sports less frequently than children living in families with a higher socioeconomic status. In addition, as children that are not participating in any sports in childhood will be even less likely to pursue some sport in their teenage years [37], these children living in neighborhoods of a lower socioeconomic status will rarely become adults that play some sports regularly. Among the people exercising regularly in adulthood, the proportion of those who also kept playing some sports in adolescence is a lot higher, which implies that childhood sport activities which continued in teenage years would likely result in these people doing physical activities in adulthood as well. Therefore, it is particularly regrettable that involvement in physical activities drops drastically in adolescence; also in a significant number of cases, physical activities will be limited almost exclusively to that involved in household chores and active transportation, e.g., walking or cycling to and from school [38]. Several studies confirm that people of a higher socioeconomic status (SES) are more active physically [39], as this favorable status leads to having more opportunities in terms of proper infrastructure and the facilities needed for physical activities. Thus, these people tend to achieve a moderate to intense physical activity level doing 5 or more hours of sport weekly, which, in turn, decreases their prevalence of obesity [40]. Nevertheless, in neighborhoods of a lower socioeconomic status, sport is a means of development. Sport as an activity capable of shaping community identity can serve as grounds for the operation of social institutions that support the sustainable development of individual city districts. Results bring about further results, as communities that have once started a successful initiative will be able to launch further successful projects [41]. For doing physical activities, it is essential to have an appropriate number of and high quality community sport spaces; it is essential that the sports designed to be pursued there fit the expectations of the given community; it is also essential for the place to be reachable within 10 minutes for a large portion of the population [42]. This is extremely important because sport as an activity takes up part of people’s limited free time [43]. Physical activity can develop not only physical but mental health as well, especially in children. The increase of physical activity in youth can lead to higher academic performance at school, improved cognitive functions, and better behavior [44], which may indirectly help children to increase their material prosperity later. Lee and Lim [45] highlighted that sport is also beneficial in sociological terms, especially for the young, since sport teaches them rules and discipline. They used data on 2300 young Koreans to study the correlations between sports activities, the social environment, and juvenile aggression. Their results show that sport activity affects juvenile aggression through a sustainable social environment. Exercising more had no direct effect on juvenile aggression, but could improve teenagers’ relationships with teachers and friends, which in turn could reduce juvenile aggression.

The data in Table 2 show that, with certain limited exceptions, the number of people engaged in physical activities decreases with age. In countries where the rate of engagement was low at a younger age, the score remained low at older ages as well. The data also demonstrate that the western European population shows a higher tendency to do physical activity compared to Eastern Europeans; meanwhile, northerners are, actually, more active than southerners. The situation is especially alarming in Hungary, Romania, and Turkey, where none of the age groups above 20 reported participation rates in physical activity of more than 10%. Their rates largely depend on the income situation of the region, as well as the prevalent social and cultural views. It is assumed that in places where the desire to increase sport activity is hindered by low incomes, it is extremely difficult to produce changes. However, low level physical activity results in a decline in people’s health and increases in health expenditure. Consequently, conducting health economic studies in the region gains substantial importance [46]. The lack of physical activity results in obesity; childhood obesity in turn leads to an increase in the risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in adulthood, not to mention different long-term socioeconomic consequences [47]. One solution to the problem is to introduce active breaks between school lessons when students can do short but frequent physical exercises to freshen up [48].

2.2. Green Spaces as Settings for Physical Activity and Sport

Nowadays, green exercise is gaining more and more popularity, as it can enhance physical activity in all age groups. Most studies explore outdoor exercise along three dimensions. First, research [82,83,84,85] compared the results of outdoor exercise done in a built environment to exercise in a “more nature-like” environment. The second dimension compared the results of indoor and outdoor exercises; out of these, Ryan et al., Focht, and Kerr et al. [86,87,88] must be highlighted. Regarding studies done on effects resulting from changes in the visual environment in laboratory settings, Akers et al. [83] and Pretty et al. [89] must be mentioned.

However, while the importance of any activity done in the open air is an often-investigated topic, it still must be further emphasized because as a result of global population increases, more people are moving to urban areas. Urbanization is usually described in terms of population density and information on the city size growth rate [90]; this rate has been continuously increasing since the 20th century [91]. The population is expected to continuously grow in the 21st century, with more and more people moving to cities; thus, the study of the population’s spatial distribution is essential for a better understanding of urbanization processes [92]. Interestingly enough, [79] found a positive correlation between residential density and physical activity, whereas several other studies observed no correlation between these factors [93,94,95].

Big cities are also responsible for a considerable part of global greenhouse gas emissions [96]; moreover, cities provide a market with ever increasing demand for goods which are produced in agricultural lands and deforested areas that could otherwise do greenhouse gas sequestration [97]. Therefore, in terms of global sustainability, it is also a priority to stop—or at least mitigate—the flow of rural population into cities. To this aim, it is worth considering what factors could affect young adults deciding whether they should stay in a rural area or move to a big city. Although the notion of the countryside has several negative connotations [98], rural areas still have the potential to retain and attract residents. One of the most frequently mentioned obstacles of rural life is the lack of opportunities, especially the lack of well-paid jobs; on the other hand, an important attraction may be the opportunity to do various physical activities and sports, which also plays an important role in forming community identity [99]. Games, many of which are predecessors of modern sports [100], have always played a major role in rural life, as historical evidence shows. Today, in most rural communities, sport provides the most important grounds for social interaction [101]; thus, the presence of motivating local sport leaders is essential in rural communities’ life [102]. What we can see, however, is that rural regions generally lack competent sporting professionals [103]. Physical activity is a great aim in itself due to its numerous benefits, including for health preservation. Besides, it can support the achievement of some surplus targets [104]. In conclusion, sport makes a major contribution to the prevention of rural depopulation and for achieving sustainability.

Urban gardens are a further important factor in health development; meeting the needs of urban residents for increasing green space provision and health risks related to urban life are now a research imperative [105]. Therefore, we find it encouraging that physical activity done in green urban spaces has been in focus for a couple of years. Related research [106,107] has found that a number of social benefits regarding psychology, physiology, and general well-being result from such activities. Earlier study results are further supported by Araújo et al. [108], who aimed to explore why participants in outdoor physical activities felt better compared to those who performed activities indoors. Their research found that the remarkable advantage of outdoor activities is that they are affordable and varied. The positive impact of a green environment both in urban and rural areas on mental health was emphasized in Dzhambov et al. [109], Audrey et al. [110], Dean et al. [111], Pretty et al. [112], and Morris [113]; this latter study was complemented by Puett et al. [114] and Thompson et al. [115] saying that the green environment can help individuals to restore their mental strength more easily and quickly, and reduce stress levels in their life; it improves their mood [116], enhances their self-esteem [117], and leads to feeling committed in a positive sense [115].

Research has unanimously demonstrated that exercises done in nature (“green exercises”) provide us with several health benefits. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the question of why people move outdoors. A Norwegian study [118] explored the significance of nature experiences among motivations for physical activity compared to motivations for sport training. The study found that during physical exercises, nature experiences were considered to be the second most important motivation, which was only preceded by comfort factors. Thus, for persons doing physical activities in green spaces, the most important motivations were comfort and enjoying nature, while sports people considered physical health and socialization to come first.

Due to changes in the social and economic environment in the last two centuries, walking has shifted from being the “central mode of transport” to a “leisure activity”; nowadays it is the most popular physical activity done for pleasure [113]. The popularity of walking and cycling is due to the fact that they are easily available for the majority of the population, and the risk of injuries associated with them is rather low [66]. The studies conducted in the elderly aimed to assess their walking activity, and the accessibility of parks and open-air recreational spaces. Results show that improvements in the quality of neighboring natural green spaces as well as their accessibility enhances open-air physical activity [119,120,121]. Other studies examined the infrastructure supporting walking as well as the environment in relation to residents developing different diseases [40,122]. In this context, developing an urban environment that promotes physical activity may be of cardinal importance in terms of prevention. Cranney et al. [123] draws attention to the potential in outdoor gyms. These open-air gyms increase the active use of city parks, especially if users are reached through target marketing, and receive education on the use of these installations. Eigenschenk et al. [124] also aimed to explore the social benefits that green exercise brings about. They grouped beneficial effects into six categories: physical health, mental health and well-being, education and life-long learning, active citizenship, reduction of crime and antisocial behavior, and other benefits. The results showed that open-air sports help persons to adopt and maintain lifelong physical activity. The reason behind this is that open-air sports are appealing and available for a broad spectrum of people, and investments in outdoor facilities are cost-efficient.

Plenty of research has been conducted into the relationship between land use mix diversity (meaning how long it would take to get to the shops, the post office, a restaurant, etc.) and physical activity [125,126,127,128,129]. Christian et al. [128] demonstrated (N = 1798) that participants in highly walkable neighborhoods did twice the amount of walking as respondents in neighborhoods with less favorable conditions for walking (low walkable neighborhoods). Santana et al. [130] and van Lenthe et al. [131] found a positive correlation between easy accessibility of shops, service providers, and workplaces, and physical activity.

Looking at statistical data, we can draw the conclusion that the trends depicted above are also supported by the 2018 Eurobarometer data. While the majority of European citizens prefer exercising in the open air, more than half of Hungarians doing physical exercises prefer a home environment, in alignment with the residents of other Eastern European countries. An American study [99] conducted in 2014 with 11,649 participants included (men and women above 20), which aimed to explore the settings for physical activity, proved to yield similar results to the data seen in the Eurobarometer. The data were gained from questionnaires and related clinical assessments. A total of 18% of study participants exercised indoors, 54% outdoors, and 28% in both environments. Participants who exercised partially or entirely outdoors were more frequently physically active. The study also observed that participants that engaged in outdoor activities had better stress management, whereas indoor physical activity environment may be more important for not very active populations.

2.3. Social and Environmental Development Aspects of Physical Activity and Sport

The results of the Eurobarometer carried out in 2018, which are summarized in Table 3, show that the lowest number of persons exercising outdoors can be found in Hungary, whereas 67% of the population of Finland prefers to do exercises in the open air. It is also clear that more exercise is done while going home, to work, or to school. Comparing the data of the last two surveys, we can see that the rate of those exercising in home environment shows a further increase.

The popularity of gyms has increased by 3%, and 6% more Europeans prefer doing sports at their workplace. This may be due to the fact that an increasing number of multinational companies consider it important to support sports and provide sports facilities [132,133].

The Global Action Plan on Physical Activity launched by WHO in 2019 set out four strategic objectives, which provide a general framework for multidimensional policy making. The goal of this strategy is to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behavior. The action plan aims to achieve a relative reduction of 15% in the global prevalence of physical inactivity compared to 2016 data among adults and children alike. The four strategic objectives are as follows:

• Create an active society (Create a paradigm shift in all of society by enhancing knowledge and understanding of the multiple benefits of regular physical activity at all ages.)

• Create active environments (Create and maintain good quality public and green, recreational spaces for all people, of all ages and abilities, living in urban or rural communities, for them to have equitable access to safe sport places and facilities.)

• Create active people

• Create active systems.

At the 2015 summit, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which set 17 sustainable development goals. The United Nations Office on Sport for Development and Peace focuses on the close relationship between sport and sustainability. Sport can serve as a pillar for peace and development, since it plays an essential role in nations and communities showing respect and tolerance towards each other, in improving the situation of communities and individuals, especially women and young people, as well as in enhancing health, education, and social inclusion. All development goals are closely related to physical activity and nutrition targets [134]. Lindsey–Darby [135] considers this to be the first instance when such a broad development policy included sport as well, thus recognizing the role of sports in development. At the same time, authors also highlight the challenges to the achievement of these goals; addressing the complexities within and between countries makes attainment of policy coherence considerably more difficult.

The map in Figure 1 shows the distribution of time spent on health-enhancing activities for the two extremes. The map on the left shows the share of persons who spent no time on these activities, while the map on the right shows the percent of individuals who claimed to be engaged for at least 150 min. The “least active” country was Turkey with nearly 88.2% of its population not setting aside time weekly for health-enhancing physical activity. The share of inactive people was also high in Romania (84.4%), Bulgaria (82.7%), and Greece (74.1%). The mean for the EU-28 was 48.8%, which was exceeded by Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Cyprus, Poland, Croatia, Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, Spain, and France. The most active country proved to be Denmark, where only 18.7% of the population did not spend time weekly on physical activity. Finland, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Iceland and Germany also had a low share of inactive individuals (23–29%).

Figure 1. Time spent on health-enhancing (not work-related) aerobic physical activity (2014). Source: [136].

The most active country in this respect was Iceland, where 60.8% of the people spend at least 150 min a week doing physical activities. The value for Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Austria also exceeded 50%, which was significantly higher compared to other European countries. The mean for the EU-28 was 30.8%, while the countries at the end of the ranking remained significantly below this value. Turkey had a share of 4.7%, while Romania and Bulgaria had a share of 8–9%. Typically, southern countries like Greece (16.7%), Italy (18.2%), Portugal (18.4%), and Croatia (19.4%) also reported low values; similarly, Poland and Lithuania—although not southern countries—had low percentages of around 17.1% and 19.7%, respectively. The rest of the countries were around the EU-28 mean. In conclusion, considerable differences were observable across European countries with regard to physical activity, which is due to complex economic and sociological factors.

The data presented in the figure illustrate well the presence of an east-west and north-south distribution in physical activity across Europe: southern and eastern EU member state citizens tend to be physically inactive, whereas a larger number of the population of northern and western member states is more likely to spend time exercising. One possible explanation for this is that access to sports may considerably depend on the general economic situation of a society and the social status of its citizens, as early as during childhood [137]. Certain factors, for example one’s social class, may diminish their chances to actively pursue some sport or participate as volunteers in organizing different sports events [138]. Andersen and Bakken [139] draw attention to the difference seen across social groups in terms of participation, with members of higher status social groups participating more in organized sport activities; Gemar [140] adds that commitment to exercise is also influenced by the type of available social capital.

In order to increase sport activity in the population, it would be useful to find an acceptable way to interfere with people’s lifestyles. When discussing sustainability issues related to health, Sansano–Nadalet al. [141] focus on the sustainability of changes in physical activity. According to them, promoting physical activity can lead to health enhancement, which, however, requires maintaining the achieved lifestyle changes. Some people do not need any external motivation for that, as the positive effects of lifestyle change alone provide them with enough motivation to maintain these changes; others need external motivating factors, though.

Looking at the prevalence of physical activities across sexes, we found a significant gender gap (Figure 2). Comparing respondents who spent no time exercising, we could see that gender gaps were most pronounced in southern member states. The difference was generally negative in these countries, which means that more men reported spending no daily time exercising. The mean for the EU-28 was −7.5%, which implies that in general, the share of men was higher in the EU. The biggest difference could be observed in Romania (−15.2%), Bulgaria (−14.3%), Portugal (−13.1%), Spain (−12.6%), Turkey (−10.9%), Italy (−10.6%), and Croatia (−9.8%), and a significant difference was also seen in northern countries like Lithuania (−11.6%) and the Czech Republic (−9.1%). In fact, there was no gender gap in Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, and Norway, where the difference across sexes was around −1.5% or 1.1%, depending on the country. This means that in the above countries, the share of men spending no time exercising was the same as the share of women not doing any physical activity. A significant positive difference could only be seen in Denmark and Iceland (+4.8%, and +3.2%, respectively), which meant a higher share of men spending no time exercising than women.

Figure 2. Time spent on health-enhancing (not work-related) aerobic physical activity by sex difference (male – female, in %, 2014). Source: [136].

The category of at least 150 min includes respondents who spend 150 min or more a week on health-enhancing physical exercises. In this category, no negative difference was observable, which implies that there was no European country with a higher share of women. In Denmark, Turkey, Finland, Iceland, and Poland, the gap remained in general between +2.2 and 3.9%. Some countries like Portugal, the Czech Republic, or Austria reported a difference over 8%, while France, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Luxembourg presented a 9% gap. The biggest difference was seen in Spain (+11.4%), Slovenia (+10.6%), and Ireland (+10.1%), with men’s higher share. This was quite close to the EU-28 mean, which was 8.1% in 2014. These data demonstrate altogether that women in general were more likely not to take part in any health-enhancing, not work-related physical activity. This was especially true for southern EU countries, and more to the north we looked, the more this tendency declined; in the northern EU, this trend was reversed. In the category of at least 150 min a week, there was no such obvious geographical difference, and the data distribution was not so significant either—this means there was no significant gender gap. Nevertheless, wherever there was a gap, it was men who had a higher share.

The level of educational attainment also influences the level of participation in physical activity or the attitudes towards it. Differences were analyzed across two groups. The first group included the population who did no health-enhancing physical activity during a week, while the other group consisted of individuals who exercise at least 150 min a week. We analyzed in both groups whether there were any differences between those with 5–8 level (tertiary) and those with 0–2 level (less than primary, primary, and lower secondary) education (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Time spent on health—enhancing (not work—related) aerobic physical activity by educational attainment level difference (male—female, in %, 2014). Note: Educational attainment level according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011), where levels between 0 and 2 means less than primary, primary, and lower secondary education and levels between 5 and 8 means tertiary education. Source: [136].

Significant differences could be detected between the levels. In Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, the difference between the shares peaked at −30% percentage points, that is the share of those with 0–2 level education was much higher in these countries. The difference between the shares of the two educational attainment levels also exceeded −20% percentage points in several countries, namely Luxembourg (−29.8%), France (−26.9%), Greece (−26.2%), and the Czech Republic (−25.8%), where there was a difference of −25% percentage points; and Latvia, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Estonia, and Sweden also reported a difference of over −20%. The mean of the EU-28 was −27.8%, which also proved to be significant compared to the indicators of the individual countries. Only two EU countries reported positive differences. In fact, no difference was seen in Romania (0.2%), and the difference in Lithuania was also as small as 2.1%. This means that among those spending no time per week on physical activity, the proportion of low educated people was generally higher. Among those spending at least 150 min per week performing physical exercises, there was no such significant difference. Only Lithuania reported a negative difference, with the proportion of those with 0–2 level education being slightly higher. Several countries recorded practically no difference. The difference in Romania, Iceland, Hungary, Finland, and the Czech Republic was below +1.5% percentage points, and the difference in Latvia, Estonia, France, Germany, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, and Turkey also failed to exceed +3%. The highest positive difference could be observed in Slovenia (+15.3%), and it was also significant in the United Kingdom (+9.8%) and Malta (+7.8%). The EU-28 mean difference was 7.2%, implying that among those spending more time on physical exercises, the proportion of individuals with tertiary educational attainment was slightly higher. No obvious geographical tendency could be observed in any of the cases.