The Promoting Role of Sports Park Quality on Interpersonal Trust Among Residents: A Parallel Mediation Model

The Promoting Role of Sports Park Quality on Interpersonal Trust Among Residents: A Parallel Mediation Model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Promoting Role of Sports Park Quality on Interpersonal Trust Among Residents: A Parallel Mediation Model Xuehui Guo, Xue L i, Mingze Gao This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651721/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Interpersonal trust forms the core of community social capital. This study examines how sports park quality influences residents' interpersonal trust through two parallel pathways: sports participation and social interaction. Based on questionnaire data from 1,916 residents in Shandong Province, China, structural equation modelling and Bootstrap methods were employed for analysis. Results indicate: 1) Sports park quality not only directly and positively predicts interpersonal trust but also significantly and positively predicts sports participation and social interaction. 2) Both sports participation and social interaction significantly and positively predict interpersonal trust. 3) Both sports participation and social interaction exert significant partial mediating effects between sports park quality and interpersonal trust, forming a parallel dual-mediation mechanism. Sports participation mediates 48.3% of the total effect, surpassing social interaction's 31.1% contribution. This study reveals the ''space-behaviour-psychology'' mechanism, providing empirical evidence and theoretical insights for fostering community trust through high-quality public space planning. Humanities/Health humanities Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Social science/Sociology sports parks quality sports participation social interaction interpersonal trust parallel mediation model Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Interpersonal trust, as a core component of social capital, plays a vital role in fostering community cohesion, enhancing cooperative behaviour, and improving residents' mental health[ 1][2] . Against the backdrop of increasingly detached social interactions in urban settings, how to cultivate interpersonal trust through the design and optimisation of the built environment has become a significant issue of shared concern within the fields of social sciences and urban planning[ 3][4][5] . Sports parks, as a vital category of urban public space, not only provide residents with venues for sporting activities[ 6][7][8] ,but also, owing to their openness and shared nature, serve as key settings for fostering informal social interaction and strengthening community identity[ 9][10] . Research indicates that high-quality urban parks attract a broader range of users and foster opportunities for social connection through shared activities, thereby contributing to the establishment of trust-based relationships[ 11][12][13] . Consequently, exploring how to enhance interpersonal trust among residents by improving the quality of sports parks has become a worthwhile avenue for in-depth investigation in urban planning and community governance[ 14][15][16] . However, existing research predominantly focuses on the relationship between park quantity[ 15 ] and general societal benefits[ 17] , with limited systematic examination of how sports park quality influences specific socio-psychological outcomes—such as interpersonal trust—through multiple mechanisms. Furthermore, park quality may simultaneously affect interpersonal trust via different mediating pathways, including enhanced place attachment, facilitated social interaction, or increased environmental safety perception. These concurrent mechanisms remain insufficiently validated. In summary, investigating the specific pathways and mediating mechanisms through which sports park quality influences interpersonal trust holds significant academic value for refining park planning theory and optimising the social functions of public spaces. It also provides empirical evidence for relevant policy formulation. However, existing literature has yet to clarify the primary behavioural pathway through which sports park quality delivers social benefits: does it primarily foster trust by promoting physical activity, or by encouraging social interaction, or does it rely on both equally? Identifying this mechanism is crucial for designing precise interventions. This study proposes a parallel mediation model for testing, grounded in two key considerations: firstly, conceptually and mechanistically, sports participation and social interaction within public spaces, while connected, exhibit relative independence. They may be simultaneously and independently influenced by environmental quality, each separately affecting trust[ 18] . Second, testing a parallel model rather than assuming serial or interactive models constitutes a more robust and exploratory analytical strategy. It enables direct quantification and comparison of the effect sizes across both pathways, thereby identifying the dominant pathway and providing clear grounds for prioritising resource allocation[ 19] . Consequently, this study aims to systematically examine how sports park quality influences interpersonal trust through the aforementioned pathways by constructing a parallel mediation model. This endeavour seeks to provide precise empirical guidance for enhancing the social benefits of public spaces. Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses Sports Parks and Residents' Interpersonal Trust Environmental psychology theory indicates that high-quality physical environments convey positive social signals of order, care, and cooperation, thereby significantly enhancing residents' place attachment and positive affect[ 20][21 ] . As a specific public space integrating ecological, recreational, and sporting functions, sports parks with high-quality environments (e.g., aesthetically pleasing landscapes, comprehensive facilities, and excellent maintenance) have been demonstrated to possess outstanding restorative benefits. These environments effectively alleviate mental fatigue and stress among residents, inducing states of relaxation and pleasure[ 22] . Such positive emotional states constitute crucial psychological prerequisites for individuals to exhibit openness, cooperation, and prosocial behaviour, thereby laying the foundation for trust formation [ 23] . A more significant mechanism lies in the fact that positive perceptions of the physical environment generalise to judgements about other users, a process termed affective generalisation or cue inference. Classic research has found that individuals' evaluations of public spaces directly influence their expectations regarding the character and behaviour of strangers encountered within those spaces. People tend to perceive individuals encountered in well-maintained parks as more friendly and trustworthy[ 24] . When residents perceive a sports park as thoughtfully designed and maintained, they unconsciously infer that the environment's positive attributes—such as orderliness, safety, and amenity—are equally upheld by high-calibre, law-abiding neighbours who share similar recreational values[ 25] . This social inference based on environmental cues directly reduces uncertainty and perceived social risk towards strangers, thereby elevating generalised trust levels[ 26] . However, this generalisation process is not unconditional and its intensity may be influenced by boundary conditions. Firstly, the function and activity types of the park are crucial. Unlike ordinary parks primarily used for strolling or contemplation, the frequent collaborative sporting activities in sports parks inherently serve as explicit demonstrations of rules, cooperation, and fair competition. Participants can more directly observe others' prosocial behaviours, potentially reinforcing the inference that "users here are more trustworthy" [ 3 ] . Secondly, the actual level of environmental maintenance and perceived safety form the foundation. If a park suffers from damaged facilities, untidiness, or a lack of security due to inadequate management, it fails to convey positive signals and may instead trigger negative inferences, inhibiting the generation of trust[ 27] . Furthermore, usage frequency and patterns may moderate this process. Regular visits, through repeated exposure, continually validate or revise inferences based on first impressions, thereby consolidating or altering trust levels[ 28] . Based on the preceding analysis, this study hypothesises: H1: High-quality sports parks exert a significant positive effect on residents' interpersonal trust. Sports Parks and Physical Activity Participation As purpose-built venues for physical activity, the quality of sports parks serves as a crucial antecedent factor in motivating residents to engage in exercise. Extensive empirical research confirms the decisive role of specific environmental attributes in promoting physical activity. Giles-Corti et al. (2005) demonstrated that the aesthetic appeal and facilities of public open spaces are significant determinants of usage frequency, alongside proximity[ 29] . Floyd et al. (2011) conducted a dedicated study on parks, finding a strong positive correlation between the availability and quality of sports facilities within parks and observed levels of physical activity[ 30] . Kaczynski and Henderson (2007) emphasised that the maintenance, safety, and diversity of park facilities constitute core environmental variables influencing whether people—particularly adults and adolescents—choose to exercise within parks [ 6 ] . Veitch et al. (2012) further indicated that children are more inclined to engage in active play in park areas featuring novel, safe, and challenging facilities[ 31] . Based on the foregoing analysis, this study hypothesises: H2: High-quality sports parks exert a significant positive effect on physical activity participation. Sports Parks and Social Interaction The realisation of public spaces' social functions heavily depends on whether their design and management quality encourages people to linger and interact. Whyte's (1980) seminal research indicates that micro-environmental features such as sitability, pedestrian flow, sunlight, and food availability are key to creating vibrant public spaces that foster social use[ 32] . For sports parks, the mechanisms facilitating social interaction may be more diverse. Gehl (2011) categorises activities in public spaces as necessities, spontaneity, and socialising, noting that high-quality environments effectively transform a series of spontaneous activities, such as walking, into social activities like conversation[ 29 ] . Within the sports park context, high-quality facilities and pleasant environments enhance residents' willingness to linger, thereby creating temporal and spatial opportunities for social interaction. Peters et al. (2010) found that a park's cleanliness, safety, and environmental appeal significantly influence the likelihood of residents engaging in social activities there[ 9 ] . Well-planned seating arrangements and ample public rest areas provide opportunities for residents to be present and engage, thereby increasing the frequency of unplanned interactions[ 33] . Furthermore, the diverse activity offerings within sports parks inherently attract different groups, creating natural social gathering points that facilitate the transition from passive encounters to active communication. Based on the above analysis, this study hypothesises: H3: High-quality sports parks exert a significant positive effect on social interaction. Sports Participation and Interpersonal Trust Participation in sport, particularly within community public spaces, serves as a vital avenue for cultivating social capital. Social identity theory posits that shared engagement in sporting activities fosters a collective identity grounded in shared affiliations such as 'sports enthusiasts' or 'regular park-goers'. This in-group identification promotes mutual trust and cooperation amongst members [ 34] . The repeated exposure hypothesis posits that regular sporting activities increase the frequency of unplanned encounters with other participants at the same location. Mere familiarity with faces reduces uncertainty and fosters initial trust[ 35] . Norm internalisation and reciprocity theory suggests that many sporting activities, particularly team sports, incorporate rules of cooperation, fair play, and immediate reciprocity. By practising these norms, participants internalise them as universal expectations for social interaction, thereby strengthening trust[ 36] . Research by and colleagues further supports this pathway, indicating that individuals utilising public spaces for sporting activities report heightened neighbourhood social connectedness[ 25 ] . The edited volume by Nicholson and Hoye (2008) systematically argues for the contribution of sports club participation to building social trust and networks[ 37] . Even informal physical activities in public spaces have been found to correlate with enhanced community belonging and trust[ 38] . Based on this, the present study hypothesises: H4: Sports participation exerts a significant positive effect on residents' interpersonal trust. H5: Sports participation mediates significantly between sports park quality and residents' interpersonal trust. Social Interaction and Interpersonal Trust Social interaction constitutes the most direct and fundamental mechanism for building interpersonal trust. According to social exchange theory and interpersonal communication theory, face-to-face interaction enables individuals to exchange information, observe each other's behaviour, express emotions, and establish reciprocal expectations – all foundational elements for trust formation [ 39] . Granovetter's (1973) theory of weak ties emphasises the importance of non-intimate, incidental social contacts for information transmission and the establishment of broad social trust[ 40] . Social interactions within public spaces, such as neighbourly greetings or casual chats about park activities, constitute quintessential sources of these "weak ties". Kazmierczak's (2013) research directly demonstrates that the frequency of social interactions occurring in local parks exhibits a significant positive correlation with residents' sense of place attachment and the strength of neighbourhood social bonds [ 10 ] . Uslaner (2002) distinguishes between generalised trust and particularised trust, positing that positive interactions based on shared community spaces and experiences help extend particularised trust rooted in acquaintances to broader generalised trust[ 41] . Social interactions occurring within the informal, leisure- and health-oriented setting of a sports park are typically accompanied by positive emotions. These interactions are more likely to foster positive memories of encounters and benevolent inferences about others, thereby effectively elevating trust levels[ 24 ] . Based on this, the present study hypothesises: H6: Social interaction exerts a significant positive effect on residents' interpersonal trust. H7: Social interaction exerts a significant mediating effect between sports park quality and residents' interpersonal trust. H8: Sports participation and social interaction exert a significant parallel mediating effect between sports park quality and residents' interpersonal trust. Based on the aforementioned hypotheses, the theoretical model constructed for this study is depicted in Figure 1. This model clearly delineates the theoretical framework whereby sports park quality, as the independent variable, ultimately influences interpersonal trust through two parallel mediating pathways: sports participation and social interaction. Method Research Design and Data Collection This study employed questionnaire surveys to collect data, aiming to examine the structural relationships and causal pathways among sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and residents' interpersonal trust. Shandong Province in China was selected as the research area, as it encompasses diverse urban forms including coastal and inland cities, as well as new and old urban districts, thereby enhancing sample diversity. All methods employed in this study were conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Research involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Qufu Normal University. To comprehensively capture variations in perceived sports park quality and its social effects, a targeted mixed sampling strategy was adopted. Offline distribution commenced within 16 cities across Shandong Province, targeting diverse sports park types and residential areas within a 500 to 1000 metre radius. Questionnaires were distributed and invitations extended simultaneously at park entrances, surrounding community activity centres, and other locations, addressing both apparent park users and potential users or non-users (such as passing residents or those resting nearby). This approach aimed to avoid confining the sample solely to frequent users. Online distribution utilised regional social media platforms, local lifestyle groups, and community residents' committees to disseminate questionnaire links to broader resident networks. The introductory text and screening questions explicitly stated the study's focus on residents' perceptions of community public spaces, regardless of usage frequency, to encourage participation from those who seldom or never used the sports parks. Translated with DeepL.com (free version) The survey period ran from July to December 2025. A total of 2,300 questionnaires were distributed. Following rigorous screening of the returned responses, 1,916 valid questionnaires were obtained, representing an effective response rate of 83.3%. Sample Characteristics The demographic characteristics of the sample are detailed in Table 1. The distribution of categories for control variables indicates that the sample is reasonably representative. Gender balance is maintained, with females accounting for 50.63% and males 49.37%.with the age distribution centred on young and middle-aged adults: 23.38% aged 21–35 and 20.15% aged 51–65. Educational attainment predominantly comprised senior secondary/vocational education (38.36%), while personal income levels favoured lower-middle brackets: those earning below ¥2,000 and between ¥2,001–¥4,000 collectively accounted for 52.61%. Park usage frequency was most common at 2-3 times monthly (38.78%), with visit duration also most frequent at 2-3 times monthly (37.89%). These demographic characteristics align with the typical profile of urban park users, avoiding extreme biases. This aids in controlling potential confounding factors and ensures the robustness of the model results. Table 1. Distribution of Sample Demographic Characteristics Variable Option Frequency Percentage (%) gender Male 946 49.37% Female 970 50.63% age ≤ 20 years old 368 19.21% 21–35 years old 448 23.38% 36–50 years old 366 19.10% 51–65 years old 386 20.15% ≥ 65 years old 348 18.16% education_level Junior secondary and below 425 22.18% Senior secondary/vocational education 735 38.36% Undergraduate/College Diploma 528 27.56% Master's degree and above 228 11.90% personal_income ≤ 2,000 ¥ 493 25.73% 2,001–4,000 ¥ 515 26.88% 4,001–6,000 ¥ 400 20.88% 6,001–8,000 ¥ 314 16.39% ≥ 8,000 ¥ 194 10.13% park_freq ≤ 1 time per month 341 17.80% 2-3 times per month 743 38.78% 2-3 times per week 481 25.10% Almost daily 351 18.32% stay_time ≤ 30 minutes 418 21.82% 31-60 minutes 726 37.89% 61-90 minutes 478 24.95% ≥ 90 minutes 294 15.34% Total 1916 100.00% Variable Measurement Measurement Tools and Variable Operationalisation Sports park quality. Measured using the user satisfaction section from scholar K.M. Maniruzzaman's (2021) questionnaire[ 42] , comprising six items. Employing a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), a higher total score indicates a more positive evaluation of the sports park's quality. In this study, the Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.872, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Sports participation. This was measured using the Physical Activity Rating Scale PARS-3[ 43] , developed by Japanese scholar Kōkuma Hashimoto (1990) and subsequently translated and revised by Chinese scholars including Liang Deqing in 1994. It comprises three items assessing exercise frequency, exercise intensity, and exercise duration respectively. Scoring formula: Total Physical Participation Score = Exercise Frequency Score × Exercise Intensity Score × (Exercise Duration Score-1). Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater physical participation levels. In this study, the Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.734, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Social Interaction. The scale originates from Skjaeveland (1996)'s Neighbouring Multidimensional Scale[ 44] . It employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always), with higher scores indicating more frequent social interaction. The original scale comprised 18 items, of which 6 were closely aligned with this study. One item was reverse-scored. After processing and calculating the total score, reliability was re-examined. In this study, the Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.795, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Interpersonal Trust. This scale originates from the classic psychometric instrument Interpersonal Trust Scale developed by American psychologist Julian B. Rotter in 1967[ 45] . It employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), with higher total scores indicating greater interpersonal trust. The original scale comprised 25 items covering multidimensional aspects such as trust in competence, trust in responsibility, and trust in affection. Nine items closely aligned with this study were selected and subjected to renewed reliability testing. In this study, the Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.939, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Data Analysis Strategy and Process Data computation primarily utilised SPSS and AMOS software within a Python 3.12 programming environment. Scientific computing and visualisation libraries including Pandas, NumPy, StatsModels, Scikit-learn, Matplotlib, and Seaborn were employed for auxiliary data preprocessing and visualisation. Key steps are outlined below. Data Preprocessing. Primarily executed using the pandas library, missing value imputation employed the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) method. This approach provides unbiased estimates when dealing with sparse random missing data, outperforming simple deletion or mean imputation methods[ 46] . Reversed-scoring items in the social interaction scale were converted, and the total sports participation score was calculated. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each continuous variable, with Pearson correlation analysis conducted to preliminarily examine relationships between variables. Reliability and validity testing. Cronbach's α coefficients and composite reliability (CR) were calculated for each latent variable to assess reliability; average variance extracted (AVE) was computed to examine convergent validity; discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criteria. Structural equation modelling analysis. Construct structural equation models using maximum likelihood estimation (ML) to test research hypotheses. Models encompass sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and interpersonal trust, controlling for gender, age, usage frequency, and duration of stay. Assess overall model fit via χ²/df, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, GFI, and other indices. Mediation effect testing. The Bootstrap method (5000 repeated samples) was employed to test the significance of two mediation pathways: "sports park quality → sports participation → interpersonal trust" and "sports park quality → social interaction → interpersonal trust". Significance was determined by calculating the estimated indirect effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI); if the CI did not include zero, the mediation effect was deemed significant.All statistical analyses employed a significance level of p < 0.05. Results Reliability and Validity Tests To ensure the validity of subsequent structural equation modelling, reliability and validity tests were first conducted on the measurement model. The Cronbach's α coefficients for the four scales—sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and interpersonal trust—were 0.872, 0.734, 0.795, and 0.939 respectively, indicating good internal consistency[ 47] . Construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The KMO values for the four scales—sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and interpersonal trust—were 0.906, 0.886, 0.920, and 0.965 respectively, all exceeding 0.60. Furthermore, Bartlett's sphericity test yielded significant results for all scales (p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. All item loadings on their respective factors exceeded 0.50, demonstrating sound unidimensionality. The results of the convergent validity analysis are presented in Table 2. Regarding composite reliability (CR), all latent variables exhibited CR values exceeding the 0.70 threshold, indicating high internal consistency of the measurement indicators. In terms of average variance extracted (AVE), the respective values were 0.603, 0.704, 0.683, and 0.735, demonstrating that the measurement model as a whole possesses sound convergent validity[ 48] . Table 2. Results of Reliability and Convergent Validity Analysis Latent Variable AVE CR Sports Park Quality 0.603 0.801 Sports Participation 0.704 0.877 Social Interaction 0.683 0.828 Interpersonal Trust 0.735 0.861 Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criteria, as shown in Table 3. The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variable exceeded the correlation coefficients between that latent variable and other latent variables, providing strong evidence for discriminant validity among the concepts [ 45 ] . Table 3. Discriminant Validity Results Variable Sports Park Quality Sports Participation Social Interaction Interpersonal Trust Sports Park Quality 0.777 Sports Participation 0.350 0.839 Social Interaction 0.506 0.540 0.827 Interpersonal Trust 0.361 0.006 0.569 0.857 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) for the four core continuous variables in this study, along with their Pearson correlation coefficient matrix. The mean scores for sports park quality (M = 18.009, SD = 6.641), sports participation (M = 28.936, SD = 13.392), social interaction (M = 18.061, SD = 6.94), and interpersonal trust total score (M = 26.971, SD = 10.44) were as follows.SD = 13.392), social interaction (M = 18.061, SD = 6.94), and interpersonal trust total scores (M = 26.971, SD = 10.472) all exhibited statistically significant positive correlations (all p-values < 0.001). This provides preliminary evidence supporting the examination of park quality's influence on community trust via the mediating pathways of physical activity participation and social interaction. Specifically, the weak positive correlations between park quality total scores and both physical participation total scores (r = 0.292) and social interaction total scores (r = 0.448) indicate that high-quality park environments moderately promote residents' physical activities and social engagement. The relatively weaker direct correlation between park quality total scores and trust total scores (r = 0.232) suggests this influence may rely more heavily on indirect pathways. The moderate positive correlation between total sports participation and total trust (r = 0.548) represents the strongest association within this model, indicating that physical activity may serve as a key bridge for enhancing community trust. The weak to moderate positive correlations between total social participation and both total trust (r = 0.360) and total sports participation (r = 0.430) further reinforce the logical chain among these variables.The mean absolute correlation coefficient was 0.385, indicating no concern regarding multicollinearity. All correlation coefficients between variables remained below 0.70. Combined with the prior discriminant validity tests, this further indicates no severe multicollinearity issues exist. Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the main study variables. Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation; ** p < 0.001 Variable M SD Sports Park Quality Sports Participation Social Interaction Interpersonal Trust Sports Park Quality 18.009 6.641 1 Sports Participation 18.061 6.94 0.448** 1 Social Interaction 26.971 10.472 0.232** 0.360** 1 Interpersonal Trust 28.936 13.392 0.292** 0.430** 0.548** 1 Model and Hypothesis Testing Overall Model Fit Having validated the measurement model, this study constructed a structural equation model incorporating control variables to test the research hypotheses. The model fit table summarises absolute, incremental, and parsimonious fit indices: χ² (246) = 277.53 (p = 0.08), χ²/df = 1.13 0.95, TLI = 0.998 > 0.95,RMSEA = 0.012 (90% CI [0.007, 0.017]) < 0.05, SRMR = 0.014 0.90.These indices all meet the academic community's recognised standards for excellence, indicating that the theoretical model fits the observed data exceptionally well. This permits the model to be accepted for testing path hypotheses. It demonstrates that the theoretical model fits the data well [ 49] . Direct Effect Testing Within the structural equation modelling (SEM) framework of this study, direct paths for five hypotheses were tested to verify the direct influence of perceived sports park quality on residents' interpersonal trust, as well as its direct associations with sports participation and social interaction. As shown in Table 5, these tests were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation (ML) combined with Bootstrap sampling (5000 resamples) on complete item data from 1916 respondents, yielding standardised path coefficients (β), standard errors (SE), t-values, and p-values. All direct paths were examined after controlling for covariates (gender, age, educational attainment, personal income, park usage frequency, and average time spent in the park). The model demonstrated excellent overall fit (CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.012), supporting the reliability of the pathways. Detailed results of the direct path tests are presented in Table 5 and Figure 2. The validation status of each research hypothesis is summarised as follows. Table 5 indicates that when sports park quality exerts a direct influence on residents' interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient is β = 0.232, and this path exhibits significance at the 0.001 level (t = 10.425, p = 0.000 < 0.001).This direct effect indicates that for each standardised unit increase in perceived sports park quality, residents' interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise by 0.232 units. This supports the theoretical assumption that physical environmental quality serves as a foundation for social trust. Consequently, research hypothesis H1 holds. Regarding the influence of sports park quality on sports participation, the standardised path coefficient is β = 0.263, and this path exhibited significance at the 0.001 level (t = 11.907, p < 0.001). This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in park spatial quality, residents' sports participation levels are projected to rise by 0.263 units, supporting the hypothesis that environmental characteristics drive engagement in health-related behaviours. Thus, research hypothesis H2 holds. Table 5 indicates that when sports park quality exerts a direct influence on residents' interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient was β = 0.232, and this path exhibits significance at the 0.001 level (t = 10.425, p = 0.000 < 0.001).This direct effect indicates that for each standardised unit increase in perceived sports park quality, residents' interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise by 0.232 units. This supports the theoretical assumption that physical environmental quality serves as a foundation for social trust. Consequently, research hypothesis H1 holds. Regarding the influence of sports park quality on sports participation, the standardised path coefficient was β = 0.263, and this path exhibited significance at the 0.001 level (t = 11.907, p < 0.001). This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in park spatial quality, residents' sports participation levels are projected to rise by 0.263 units, supporting the hypothesis that environmental characteristics drive engagement in health-related behaviours. Thus, research hypothesis H2 holds. Regarding the impact of sports park quality on social interaction, the standardised path coefficient was β = 0.437, and this path was statistically significant at the 0.001 level (t = 21.276, p < 0.001).This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in park spatial quality, residents' social interaction levels are projected to rise by 0.437 units, supporting the hypothesis that high-quality public spaces foster social engagement. Thus, research hypothesis H3 holds. When examining the effect of sports participation on residents' interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient was β = 0.500, and this path was statistically significant at the 0.001 level (t = 25.200, p < 0.001).This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in sports participation, residents' interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise significantly by 0.500 units, supporting the hypothesis that shared activity participation strengthens social trust. Thus, research hypothesis H4 holds. Regarding the influence of social interaction on residents' interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient was β = 0.344, and this path was statistically significant at the 0.001 level (t = 15.949, p < 0.001). This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in social interaction, residents' interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise by 0.344 units, supporting the hypothesis that social interaction and network support directly promote trust. Consequently, research hypothesis H6 holds. In summary, all five direct path hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4, H6) were supported by the data, establishing a robust foundation for subsequent testing of parallel mediating effects. Table 5. Results of the Direct Effect Test. Note: → indicates the directional influence of the path. Hypothesis Path β S.E. t p Result H1 Sports Park Quality → Interpersonal Trust 0.232 0.022 10.425 < 0.001 Support H2 Sports Park Quality → Sports Participation 0.263 0.022 11.907 < 0.001 Support H3 Sports Park Quality → Social Interaction 0.437 0.021 21.276 < 0.001 Support H4 Sports participation → Interpersonal trust 0.500 0.020 25.200 < 0.001 Support H6 Social Interaction → Interpersonal Trust 0.344 0.022 15.949 < 0.001 Support The standardised path coefficients and their significance levels for this study's theoretical model are fully presented in Figure 2. This path diagram not only visualises all direct hypothesis paths but also clearly demonstrates that sports park quality exerts the strongest direct influence on social interaction, while sports participation serves as the most potent conduit towards interpersonal trust. Mediation Effect Testing Within the structural equation modelling framework of this study, core mechanism testing was conducted to examine the mediating effects, verifying how sports park quality indirectly influences residents' interpersonal trust through the pathways of sports participation and social interaction. This testing employed the Bootstrap method (5000 resamples) to calculate the indirect effect value (a × b) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). All paths were tested after controlling for covariates (gender, age, educational attainment, personal income, park usage frequency, single visit duration). The model demonstrated excellent overall fit (CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.012), supporting the reliability of the mediation hypothesis. Detailed results are presented in Table 6. Sports park quality significantly and positively predicted sports participation (a 1 = 0.263, p < 0.001), while sports participation exerted an extremely significant predictive effect on interpersonal trust (b 1 = 0.426, p < 0.001). The product term representing the mediating effect (a 1 × b 1 ), was 0.112, with a Bootstrap 95% confidence interval of [0.091, 0.132] that excluded zero, confirming the statistical significance of the mediating effect. After controlling for the mediating variable of sports participation, the direct effect of sports park quality on residents' interpersonal trust (c' = 0.048) remained significant (p = 0.028).This indicates that research hypothesis H5 holds. Effect size decomposition reveals that this indirect effect accounts for 48.3% of the total effect (c = 0.232), suggesting that nearly half of the enhancement of residents' interpersonal trust by sports park quality is achieved through motivating and accommodating residents' participation in sports activities. Sports park quality significantly and positively predicted social interaction (a 2 = 0.437, p < 0.001), while social interaction also significantly and positively predicted interpersonal trust (b 2 = 0.165, p < 0.001).The mediation effect value (a 2 × b 2 ) was 0.072, with its 95% Bootstrap confidence interval [0.052, 0.090] also excluding zero. Concurrently, the direct path (c' = 0.048) remained significant. Thus, social interaction also played a significant partial mediating role, confirming research hypothesis H7.Effect size decomposition indicates this indirect effect accounts for 31.1% of the total effect (c = 0.232). Though lower than the sports participation pathway, its theoretical significance is undeniable. It reveals that high-quality sports parks directly create venues conducive to face-to-face exchanges, encouraging spontaneous or planned social interactions. These frequent, low-cost weak-tie interactions effectively reduce perceived social distance and uncertainty among residents, forming the foundation for cultivating generalised trust. Table 6. Mediation Effect Test Results Effect Type Effect Size Lower limit of 95% CI Upper limit of 95% CI Significance Sports Participation mediating effect (a1×b1) 0.112 0.091 0.132 Significant Social Interaction mediation effect (a2×b2) 0.072 0.052 0.092 Significant Total indirect effect 0.184 0.156 0.213 Significant Direct effect (c') 0.048 0.005 0.091 Significant Total effect (c) 0.232 0.189 0.274 Significant Having separately validated the independent mediating effects of sports participation and social interaction, this study further assessed their concurrent mediating effects holistically. Analysis revealed that the total indirect effect value across both pathways was 0.184, with a 95% Bootstrap confidence interval of [0.156, 0.213], which did not include zero. The total effect (c) was 0.232 (95% CI [0.189, 0.274]). This result unequivocally supports research hypothesis H8: sports participation and social interaction constitute a statistically significant and substantively important parallel dual mediation mechanism in the process whereby sports park quality influences residents' interpersonal trust. To visually compare the magnitude of contributions across pathways, Figure 3(a) decomposes the total effect into direct effects and the mediating effects of both sports participation and social interaction, clearly illustrating their respective proportions. Figure 3(b) presents the effect diagram with confidence intervals. As shown, the sports participation pathway accounts for the bulk of the total effect, visually confirming its central role as the dominant mediating mechanism. The social interaction pathway and direct pathway serve as important supplementary components. Discussion The Dominant Path of Sports Participation This study reveals that participation in sport constitutes a more potent mediating pathway, offering a significant complement to perspectives that solely emphasise public spaces as universal social platforms [9] . This finding suggests that when evaluating functionally specific spaces such as sports parks, attention must be paid to the unique social attributes of the core activities they facilitate. Sport participation may prove more effective in fostering trust because it simultaneously activates two mutually reinforcing psychosocial processes. Firstly, sporting activities, particularly team or rule-based sports, constitute structured cooperative practices. Participants repeatedly experience and internalise a set of prosocial behavioural norms concerning cooperation, fairness, and reciprocity. According to social interdependence and norm internalisation theory, such shared experiential foundations shape individuals' generalised expectations of social interactions, thereby systematically elevating trust levels [37] . Secondly, the regular visits encouraged by high-quality sports parks create stable, high-frequency opportunities for repeated encounters. Social psychological research confirms that mere repeated exposure enhances liking and affinity, forming the foundation for trust development [36] . More crucially, sustained shared participation fosters social identity based on common activity affiliations, such as sports enthusiasts or park regulars. Social identity theory indicates that this ingroup identity constitutes the core psychological mechanism for eliciting deep trust and cooperation among members [ ] . Thus, the quality of sports parks provides a robust behavioural foundation for building social trust by supporting activities that are normative, repetitive, and capable of shaping shared identities. Auxiliary Pathways for Social Interaction The significance of the social interaction pathway in this study supports traditional theoretical perspectives that public spaces expand social networks by fostering weak ties [41] . However, its relatively small effect size suggests we should examine the efficacy boundaries of this pathway in specific contexts. Within the sports park context, many meaningful social interactions directly stem from sporting activities themselves, such as technical exchanges during breaks or conversations based on shared interests [9] . This implies that part of social interaction's contribution to trust may already be statistically accounted for within the sports participation pathway. Nevertheless, the independent effect of this pathway remains significant. It demonstrates that high-quality park environments, by enhancing place attractiveness and willingness to linger, can provide residents with informal encounter opportunities. This holds foundational value for maintaining basic social familiarity within communities [ ] . However, compared to interactions centred around explicit shared activities, such encounters lacking structural focus may exhibit limitations in their efficiency for fostering deep trust. Theoretical Implications and Practical Guidance These findings deepen our understanding of the mechanisms generating social benefits in public spaces. They suggest that a space's social function lies not merely in facilitating encounters, but in enabling shared participation in specific types of social practice [10] . For sports parks, the normative, repetitive nature and identity-building potential inherent in their core activities are key to generating high social returns. Based on the aforementioned mechanism analysis, the following specific and prioritised planning implications can be derived. Firstly, in resource allocation, management authorities should prioritise safeguarding and maintaining core facilities that support collective, rule-based sporting activities, such as standard pitches, running tracks and multi-purpose fitness zones. These facilities constitute the material prerequisite for activating efficient trust-building pathways, and their social return on investment warrants particular attention. Second, spatial design should strategically integrate active sports facilities with passive leisure zones. For instance, positioning rest areas along pitch boundaries or running tracks can naturally guide behavioural transitions from sporting activities to social interaction, thereby synergistically enhancing overall societal benefits [9] . Third, within community governance, social integration programmes utilising sports parks as platforms should prioritise cultivating sustainable, activity-based social groups, such as community sports clubs. Such interventions can leverage multiple trust-building mechanisms [37][51] , potentially yielding superior outcomes compared to one-off, general social events. Research Limitations and Future Prospects This study has several limitations. The cross-sectional design restricts the certainty of causal inferences, self-reported data may be subject to common method bias, and the geographical concentration of the sample necessitates validation of conclusions across broader cultural contexts. Future research may strengthen causal arguments through longitudinal or experimental designs, incorporating objective measures such as behavioural observation. Subsequent studies should explore how individual differences moderate the relative efficacy of these pathways. For instance, personality traits and motor skill levels may influence an individual's propensity to build trust through physical activity versus social interaction. Community-level characteristics, socioeconomic composition, and residential stability may also shape the social utility of these behavioural pathways. Another promising avenue involves applying this model to other types of public spaces, systematically comparing their dominant trust-building mechanisms. For instance, might the social interaction pathway become the dominant mechanism in community gardens or street squares? Such comparative research would contribute to developing a more universally applicable theoretical framework for environmental behaviour and social capital. Conclusion This study employed a parallel mediation model to examine how the quality of sports parks influences residents' interpersonal trust. Findings indicate that sports park quality not only directly and positively predicts interpersonal trust but also exerts an indirect effect through two parallel pathways: sports participation (accounting for 48.3% of the indirect effect) and social interaction (31.1%). Among these, sports participation emerges as the relatively dominant mediating pathway. The core theoretical contribution lies in quantitatively demonstrating that trust formation within functionally oriented spaces like sports parks primarily relies on the internalisation of norms and identity formation mechanisms triggered by sporting activities, with generalised social interaction playing a supplementary role. Consequently, these findings deepen our understanding of the ''public space-social capital'' relationship: the social benefits of public spaces depend not only on facilitating encounters but also on supporting activities inherently possessing strong social integration functions, namely sports participation. Practically, this suggests that enhancing the social benefits of sports parks should prioritise optimising key dimensions influencing residents' perceived quality to effectively incentivise sports participation. The primary limitations of this study lie in its cross-sectional design and reliance on subjective perception data. Future research could integrate longitudinal data, GIS data, and objective environmental audits or street-view image-based assessments to further validate the model's generalisability and explore individual and community-level moderating factors influencing the relative strengths of these two pathways. Declarations Competing interests The author declares no conflicts of interest. Ethical approval Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants’ legal guardian/ next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. The institution granted the exemption is QuFu Normal University. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).Participation was entirely voluntary, and confidentiality was ensured through data anonymisation and restricted access to research team members. Data availability Due to the sensitive nature of the data and to protect participant confidentiality, the datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Author contributions declaration All authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of this study. XH.G initially proposed the research topic and finalized the research title. Material preparation was conducted by XH.G and X.L, while questionnaire distribution and data collection were carried out by X.L, XH.G and MZ.G Data analysis was performed by XH.G The initial manuscript was drafted collaboratively by XH.G and X.L, with subsequent revisions and refinements made by MZ.G. All authors participated in the manuscript revision process and approved the final version. Additional information Please contact MZ.G directly for inquiries or to request materials. Funding This research received no funding support. References Putnam, R. D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, N/A. (2000). Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. Measuring Trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 811-846. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926. (2000). Leyden, K. M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 1546-1551. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546. (2003). Sallis, J. F., et al. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 297-322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100. (2006). Lund, H. Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 414-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976328. (2003). Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 315-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865. (2007). Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00119-2. (2004). Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024. (2005). Peters, K., Elands, B., & Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003. (2010). Kazmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007. (2013). Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452. (2019). Cohen, D. A., et al. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 509-514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447. (2007). Jenkins, G. R., Yuen, H. K., & Rose, E. J. The Benefits of Urban Parks: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Journal of Urban Health, 794-825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9987-7. (2015). Fan, Y., et al. How do urban parks design features influence social interaction? A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 127732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127732. (2023). Schipperijn, J., et al. Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.12.002. (2013). Sun, Y., Tan, S., He, Q., & Shen, J. Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031466. (2022) Mullenbach, L. E., et al. Cultivating social capital in diverse, low-income neighborhoods: The value of parks for parents with young children. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104313. (2022). Ewing, R., & Handy, S. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design. 14(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155 (2009). Hayes, A. F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. (2017). Gifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology. 65, 541-579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 (2014). Williams D R, Vaske J J. The measurement of place attachment in recreation and natural resource settings[J]. Forest Science, 2003, 49(6): 830-840. Kaplan S, Kaplan R. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press. (1989). Fredrickson, B. L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 (2001). Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022294028903 (1998). Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., & Weber, D. Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning. 121, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006 (2014). Nasar, J. L. Assessing perceptions of environments for active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 34(4), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.013 (2008). Maruthaveeran, S., & van den Bosch, C. C. K. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces – A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 31, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.017 (2018). Gehl, J. Life between buildings: Using public space. Island Press. (2011). Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., ... & Donovan, R. J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018 (2005). Floyd, M. F., Bocarro, J. N., Smith, W. R., Baran, P. K., Moore, R. C., Cosco, N. G., ... & Fang, K. Park-based physical activity among children and adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(3), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.04.013 (2011). Veitch, J., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. The validity and reliability of an instrument to assess children's outdoor play in various locations. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 15(5), 421–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.01.001 (2012). Whyte, W. H. The social life of small urban spaces. Project for Public Spaces. (1980). Scopelliti M, Giuliani M V, Fornara F. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4): 423-432.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002 (2004) Tausch, N., Schmid, K., & Hewstone, M. The social psychology of intergroup relations. In G. Salomon & E. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook on peace education (pp. 75–86). Psychology Press. (2010). Zajonc, R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848 (1968). Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. (1961). Nicholson, M., & Hoye, R. (Eds.). Sport and social capital. Routledge. (2008). Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for adults: Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-135 (2013). Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons. (1964). Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 (1973). Uslaner, E. M. The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press. (2002). K.M. Maniruzzaman, Ali Alqahtany, Antar Abou-Korin, Faez S. Al-Shihri. An analysis of residents’ satisfaction with attributes of urban parks in Dammam city, Saudi Arabia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal,12(3),3365-3374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.11.020. (2021) Liang, D., and Liu, S. The relationship between stress level and physical exercise for college students. Chin. Ment. Health J. 8, 5–6. (1994). Skjaeveland, O., Garling, T., & Maeland, J. G. A multidimensional measure of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(3), 413-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512029 (1996). Rotter, J. B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x (1967). Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430-457. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 (2001). Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. (1994). Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. DOI: 10.1177/002224378101800104 (1981). Kline, R. B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press. (2023). Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall (1986). Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006 (2009). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 16 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 01 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 11 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 28 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 25 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 25 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8651721","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":590330565,"identity":"edde7fc7-c64d-4b42-af52-9643a6538157","order_by":0,"name":"Xuehui Guo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xuehui","middleName":"","lastName":"Guo","suffix":""},{"id":590330566,"identity":"f538887e-220e-4e53-a7d0-1db9a7de4b34","order_by":1,"name":"Xue L i","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Yuan Dong Vocational and Technical College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xue","middleName":"L","lastName":"i","suffix":""},{"id":590330567,"identity":"4cdbc099-5da1-45c6-bf35-ae92384180f4","order_by":2,"name":"Mingze Gao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Qufu Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mingze","middleName":"","lastName":"Gao","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-20 17:42:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651721/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651721/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102813643,"identity":"ca42928d-aa35-4746-9266-14e02f45b6aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 04:54:53","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":27967,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesized research model.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8651721/v1/34a5b903ea860d01384ab069.png"},{"id":102813645,"identity":"050d3536-bb6f-4df4-bf58-3d12185525ff","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 04:54:54","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2016003,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e(a): Direct path effect diagram of sports park quality, social interaction, sports participation, and interpersonal trust. (b): Forest plot of sports park quality, social interaction, sports participation, and interpersonal trust. Note: Estimates of squared multiple orrelations are shown above the explained variables. Indicators of latent constructs and error/residual terms of ndogenous variables are not exhibited for the sake of clarity.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8651721/v1/6ca1b5dff4dccbe93db7b528.png"},{"id":102813644,"identity":"c86c92e3-cd79-49df-8ab6-c7f937f04ef7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 04:54:54","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":783780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffect decomposition diagram. Notes: Bootstrap method with 5000 resamples, All path coefficients are standardized (β), Total effect = Direct effect+Total indirect effect.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8651721/v1/f3032e48e17d8873c0afcf03.png"},{"id":104779054,"identity":"3719db3e-4124-4107-9e7e-047b710c5367","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 07:32:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":4433910,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8651721/v1/552d66c1-70d6-4aa6-90ba-770f470e237c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Promoting Role of Sports Park Quality on Interpersonal Trust Among Residents: A Parallel Mediation Model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal trust, as a core component of social capital, plays a vital role in fostering community cohesion, enhancing cooperative behaviour, and improving residents\u0026apos; mental health[\u003csup\u003e1][2]\u003c/sup\u003e. Against the backdrop of increasingly detached social interactions in urban settings, how to cultivate interpersonal trust through the design and optimisation of the built environment has become a significant issue of shared concern within the fields of social sciences and urban planning[\u003csup\u003e3][4][5]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSports parks, as a vital category of urban public space, not only provide residents with venues for sporting activities[\u003csup\u003e6][7][8]\u003c/sup\u003e,but also, owing to their openness and shared nature, serve as key settings for fostering informal social interaction and strengthening community identity[\u003csup\u003e9][10]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Research indicates that high-quality urban parks attract a broader range of users and foster opportunities for social connection through shared activities, thereby contributing to the establishment of trust-based relationships[\u003csup\u003e11][12][13]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently, exploring how to enhance interpersonal trust among residents by improving the quality of sports parks has become a worthwhile avenue for in-depth investigation in urban planning and community governance[\u003csup\u003e14][15][16]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, existing research predominantly focuses on the relationship between park quantity[\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003eand general societal benefits[\u003csup\u003e17]\u003c/sup\u003e, with limited systematic examination of how sports park quality influences specific socio-psychological outcomes\u0026mdash;such as interpersonal trust\u0026mdash;through multiple mechanisms. Furthermore, park quality may simultaneously affect interpersonal trust via different mediating pathways, including enhanced place attachment, facilitated social interaction, or increased environmental safety perception. These concurrent mechanisms remain insufficiently validated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, investigating the specific pathways and mediating mechanisms through which sports park quality influences interpersonal trust holds significant academic value for refining park planning theory and optimising the social functions of public spaces. It also provides empirical evidence for relevant policy formulation. However, existing literature has yet to clarify the primary behavioural pathway through which sports park quality delivers social benefits: does it primarily foster trust by promoting physical activity, or by encouraging social interaction, or does it rely on both equally? Identifying this mechanism is crucial for designing precise interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study proposes a parallel mediation model for testing, grounded in two key considerations: firstly, conceptually and mechanistically, sports participation and social interaction within public spaces, while connected, exhibit relative independence. They may be simultaneously and independently influenced by environmental quality, each separately affecting trust[\u003csup\u003e18]\u003c/sup\u003e. Second, testing a parallel model rather than assuming serial or interactive models constitutes a more robust and exploratory analytical strategy. It enables direct quantification and comparison of the effect sizes across both pathways, thereby identifying the dominant pathway and providing clear grounds for prioritising resource allocation[\u003csup\u003e19]\u003c/sup\u003e. Consequently, this study aims to systematically examine how sports park quality influences interpersonal trust through the aforementioned pathways by constructing a parallel mediation model. This endeavour seeks to provide precise empirical guidance for enhancing the social benefits of public spaces.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSports\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResidents\u0026apos; Interpersonal Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental psychology theory indicates that high-quality physical environments convey positive social signals of order, care, and cooperation, thereby significantly enhancing residents\u0026apos; place attachment and positive affect[\u003csup\u003e20][21\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. As a specific public space integrating ecological, recreational, and sporting functions, sports parks with high-quality environments (e.g., aesthetically pleasing landscapes, comprehensive facilities, and excellent maintenance) have been demonstrated to possess outstanding restorative benefits. These environments effectively alleviate mental fatigue and stress among residents, inducing states of relaxation and pleasure[\u003csup\u003e22]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Such positive emotional states constitute crucial psychological prerequisites for individuals to exhibit openness, cooperation, and prosocial behaviour, thereby laying the foundation for trust formation\u0026nbsp;[\u003csup\u003e23]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;A more significant mechanism lies in the fact that positive perceptions of the physical environment generalise to judgements about other users, a process termed affective generalisation or cue inference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClassic research has found that individuals\u0026apos; evaluations of public spaces directly influence their expectations regarding the character and behaviour of strangers encountered within those spaces. People tend to perceive individuals encountered in well-maintained parks as more friendly and trustworthy[\u003csup\u003e24]\u003c/sup\u003e. When residents perceive a sports park as thoughtfully designed and maintained, they unconsciously infer that the environment\u0026apos;s positive attributes\u0026mdash;such as orderliness, safety, and amenity\u0026mdash;are equally upheld by high-calibre, law-abiding neighbours who share similar recreational values[\u003csup\u003e25]\u003c/sup\u003e. This social inference based on environmental cues directly reduces uncertainty and perceived social risk towards strangers, thereby elevating generalised trust levels[\u003csup\u003e26]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;However, this generalisation process is not unconditional\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;its intensity may be influenced by boundary conditions. Firstly, the function and activity types of the park are crucial. Unlike ordinary parks primarily used for strolling or contemplation, the frequent collaborative sporting activities in sports parks inherently serve as explicit demonstrations of rules, cooperation, and fair competition.\u0026nbsp;Participants can more directly observe others\u0026apos; prosocial behaviours, potentially reinforcing the inference that\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;users here are more trustworthy\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e[\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Secondly, the actual level of environmental maintenance and perceived safety form the foundation. If a park suffers from damaged facilities, untidiness, or a lack of security due to inadequate management, it fails to convey positive signals and may instead trigger negative inferences, inhibiting the generation of trust[\u003csup\u003e27]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, usage frequency and patterns may moderate this process. Regular visits, through repeated exposure, continually validate or revise inferences based on first impressions, thereby consolidating or altering trust levels[\u003csup\u003e28]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Based on the preceding analysis, this study hypothesises:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHigh-quality\u0026nbsp;sports parks exert a significant positive effect on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSports Parks and Physical Activity Participation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs purpose-built venues for physical activity, the quality of sports parks serves as a crucial antecedent factor in motivating residents to engage in exercise. Extensive empirical research confirms the decisive role of specific environmental attributes in promoting physical activity. Giles-Corti et al. (2005) demonstrated that the aesthetic appeal and facilities of public open spaces are significant determinants of usage frequency, alongside proximity[\u003csup\u003e29]\u003c/sup\u003e. Floyd et al. (2011) conducted a dedicated study on parks, finding a strong positive correlation between the availability and quality of sports facilities within parks and observed levels of physical activity[\u003csup\u003e30]\u003c/sup\u003e. Kaczynski and Henderson (2007) emphasised that the maintenance, safety, and diversity of park facilities constitute core environmental variables influencing whether people\u0026mdash;particularly adults and adolescents\u0026mdash;choose to exercise within parks\u003csup\u003e[\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Veitch et al. (2012) further indicated that children are more inclined to engage in active play in park areas featuring novel, safe, and challenging facilities[\u003csup\u003e31]\u003c/sup\u003e. Based on the foregoing analysis, this study hypothesises:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2:\u003c/strong\u003e High-quality sports parks\u0026nbsp;exert a significant positive effect on physical activity participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSports Parks and Social Interaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe realisation of public spaces\u0026apos; social functions heavily depends on whether their design and management quality encourages people to linger and interact. Whyte\u0026apos;s (1980) seminal research indicates that micro-environmental features such as sitability, pedestrian flow, sunlight, and food availability are key to creating vibrant public spaces that foster social use[\u003csup\u003e32]\u003c/sup\u003e. For sports parks, the mechanisms facilitating social interaction may be more diverse. Gehl (2011) categorises activities in public spaces as necessities, spontaneity, and socialising, noting that high-quality environments effectively transform a series of spontaneous activities, such as walking, into social activities like conversation[\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Within the sports park context, high-quality facilities and pleasant environments enhance residents\u0026apos; willingness to linger, thereby creating temporal and spatial opportunities for social interaction. Peters et al. (2010) found that a park\u0026apos;s cleanliness, safety, and environmental appeal significantly influence the likelihood of residents engaging in social activities there[\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Well-planned seating arrangements and ample public rest areas provide opportunities for residents to be present and engage, thereby increasing the frequency of unplanned interactions[\u003csup\u003e33]\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, the diverse activity offerings within sports parks inherently attract different groups, creating natural social gathering points that facilitate the transition from passive encounters to active communication. Based on the above analysis, this study hypothesises:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH3:\u003c/strong\u003e High-quality sports parks\u0026nbsp;exert a significant positive effect on social interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSports Participation and Interpersonal Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipation in sport, particularly within community public spaces, serves as a vital avenue for cultivating social capital. Social identity theory posits that shared engagement in sporting activities fosters a collective identity grounded in shared affiliations such as \u0026apos;sports enthusiasts\u0026apos; or \u0026apos;regular park-goers\u0026apos;. This in-group identification promotes mutual trust and cooperation amongst members\u0026nbsp;[\u003csup\u003e34]\u003c/sup\u003e. The repeated exposure hypothesis posits that regular sporting activities increase the frequency of unplanned encounters with other participants at the same location. Mere familiarity with faces reduces uncertainty and fosters initial trust[\u003csup\u003e35]\u003c/sup\u003e. Norm internalisation and reciprocity theory suggests that many sporting activities, particularly team sports, incorporate rules of cooperation, fair play, and immediate reciprocity. By practising these norms, participants internalise them as universal expectations for social interaction, thereby strengthening trust[\u003csup\u003e36]\u003c/sup\u003e. Research by \u0026nbsp;and colleagues further supports this pathway, indicating that individuals utilising public spaces for sporting activities report heightened neighbourhood social connectedness[\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The edited volume by Nicholson and Hoye (2008) systematically argues for the contribution of sports club participation to building social trust and networks[\u003csup\u003e37]\u003c/sup\u003e. Even informal physical activities in public spaces have been found to correlate with enhanced community belonging and trust[\u003csup\u003e38]\u003c/sup\u003e. Based on this, the present study hypothesises:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH4:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSports participation exerts a significant positive effect on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH5:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSports participation mediates significantly between sports park quality and residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Interaction and Interpersonal Trust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial interaction constitutes the most direct and fundamental mechanism for building interpersonal trust. According to social exchange theory and interpersonal communication theory, face-to-face interaction enables individuals to exchange information, observe each other\u0026apos;s behaviour, express emotions, and establish reciprocal expectations \u0026ndash; all foundational elements for trust formation\u0026nbsp;[\u003csup\u003e39]\u003c/sup\u003e. Granovetter\u0026apos;s (1973) theory of weak ties emphasises the importance of non-intimate, incidental social contacts for information transmission and the establishment of broad social trust[\u003csup\u003e40]\u003c/sup\u003e. Social interactions within public spaces, such as neighbourly greetings or casual chats about park activities, constitute quintessential sources of these \u0026quot;weak ties\u0026quot;. Kazmierczak\u0026apos;s (2013) research directly demonstrates that the frequency of social interactions occurring in local parks exhibits a significant positive correlation with residents\u0026apos; sense of place attachment and the strength of neighbourhood social bonds\u003csup\u003e[\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Uslaner (2002) distinguishes between generalised trust and particularised trust, positing that positive interactions based on shared community spaces and experiences help extend particularised trust rooted in acquaintances to broader generalised trust[\u003csup\u003e41]\u003c/sup\u003e. Social interactions occurring within the informal, leisure- and health-oriented setting of a sports park are typically accompanied by positive emotions. These interactions are more likely to foster positive memories of encounters and benevolent inferences about others, thereby effectively elevating trust levels[\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Based on this, the present study hypothesises:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH6:\u003c/strong\u003e Social interaction exerts a significant positive effect on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH7:\u003c/strong\u003e Social interaction exerts a significant mediating effect between sports park quality and residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH8:\u003c/strong\u003e Sports participation and social interaction exert a significant parallel mediating effect between sports park quality and residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the aforementioned hypotheses, the theoretical model constructed for this study is depicted in Figure 1. This model clearly delineates the theoretical framework whereby sports park quality, as the independent variable, ultimately influences interpersonal trust through two parallel mediating pathways: sports participation and social interaction.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design and Data Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed questionnaire surveys to collect data, aiming to examine the structural relationships and causal pathways among sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust. Shandong Province in China was selected as the research area, as it encompasses diverse urban forms including coastal and inland cities, as well as new and old urban districts, thereby enhancing sample diversity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll methods employed in this study were conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Research involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Qufu Normal University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo comprehensively capture variations in perceived sports park quality and its social effects, a targeted mixed sampling strategy was adopted. Offline distribution commenced within 16 cities across Shandong Province, targeting diverse sports park types and residential areas within a 500 to 1000 metre radius. Questionnaires were distributed and invitations extended simultaneously at park entrances, surrounding community activity centres, and other locations, addressing both apparent park users and potential users or non-users (such as passing residents or those resting nearby). This approach aimed to avoid confining the sample solely to frequent users. Online distribution utilised regional social media platforms, local lifestyle groups, and community residents\u0026apos; committees to disseminate questionnaire links to broader resident networks. The introductory text and screening questions explicitly stated the study\u0026apos;s focus on residents\u0026apos; perceptions of community public spaces, regardless of usage frequency, to encourage participation from those who seldom or never used the sports parks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTranslated with DeepL.com (free version)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey period ran from July to December 2025. A total of 2,300 questionnaires were distributed. Following rigorous screening of the returned responses, 1,916 valid questionnaires were obtained, representing an effective response rate of 83.3%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe demographic characteristics of the sample are detailed in Table 1. The distribution of categories for control variables indicates that the sample is reasonably representative. Gender balance is maintained, with females accounting for 50.63% and males 49.37%.with the age distribution centred on young and middle-aged adults: 23.38% aged 21\u0026ndash;35 and 20.15% aged 51\u0026ndash;65. Educational attainment predominantly comprised senior secondary/vocational education (38.36%), while personal income levels favoured lower-middle brackets: those earning below \u0026yen;2,000 and between \u0026yen;2,001\u0026ndash;\u0026yen;4,000 collectively accounted for 52.61%. Park usage frequency was most common at 2-3 times monthly (38.78%), with visit duration also most frequent at 2-3 times monthly (37.89%). These demographic characteristics align with the typical profile of urban park users, avoiding extreme biases. This aids in controlling potential confounding factors and ensures the robustness of the model results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 1.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Distribution of Sample Demographic Characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"566\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOption\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003egender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e946\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.37%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e970\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.63%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eage\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le; 20 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e368\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.21%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;35 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e448\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.38%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u0026ndash;50 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e366\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;65 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e386\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 65 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e348\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.16%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eeducation_level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJunior secondary and below\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e425\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.18%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSenior secondary/vocational education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e735\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate/College Diploma\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e528\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.56%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026apos;s degree and above\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e228\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epersonal_income\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le; 2,000 \u0026yen;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e493\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.73%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,001\u0026ndash;4,000 \u0026yen;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e515\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.88%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4,001\u0026ndash;6,000 \u0026yen;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e400\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.88%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6,001\u0026ndash;8,000 \u0026yen;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e314\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.39%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 8,000 \u0026yen;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.13%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epark_freq\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le; 1 time per month\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e341\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-3 times per month\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e743\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.78%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-3 times per week\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e481\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlmost daily\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.32%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003estay_time\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026le; 30 minutes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e418\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.82%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31-60 minutes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e726\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.89%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61-90 minutes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e478\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.95%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ge; 90 minutes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e294\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.34%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 244px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1916\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable Measurement Measurement Tools and Variable Operationalisation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSports park quality. Measured using the user satisfaction section from scholar K.M. Maniruzzaman\u0026apos;s (2021) questionnaire[\u003csup\u003e42]\u003c/sup\u003e, comprising six items. Employing a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), a higher total score indicates a more positive evaluation of the sports park\u0026apos;s quality. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; for this scale was 0.872, indicating good internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSports participation. This was measured using\u0026nbsp;the Physical Activity Rating Scale PARS-3[\u003csup\u003e43]\u003c/sup\u003e,\u0026nbsp;developed by Japanese scholar\u0026nbsp;Kōkuma Hashimoto (1990) and\u0026nbsp;subsequently translated and revised by Chinese scholars including Liang Deqing in 1994. It comprises three items assessing exercise frequency, exercise intensity, and exercise duration respectively. Scoring formula: Total Physical Participation Score = Exercise Frequency Score \u0026times; Exercise Intensity Score \u0026times; (Exercise Duration Score-1). Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater physical participation levels. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; for this scale was 0.734, indicating good internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction.\u0026nbsp;The scale originates from Skjaeveland (1996)\u0026apos;s Neighbouring Multidimensional Scale[\u003csup\u003e44]\u003c/sup\u003e. It employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always), with higher scores indicating more frequent social interaction.\u0026nbsp;The original scale\u0026nbsp;comprised\u0026nbsp;18 items, of which 6\u0026nbsp;were closely aligned with this study. One item was reverse-scored. After processing and calculating the total score, reliability was re-examined. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; for this scale was 0.795, indicating good internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust.\u0026nbsp;This scale originates from the classic psychometric instrument Interpersonal Trust Scale developed by American psychologist Julian B. Rotter in 1967[\u003csup\u003e45]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;It employs a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), with higher total scores indicating greater interpersonal trust.\u0026nbsp;The original scale comprised 25 items covering multidimensional aspects such as trust in competence, trust in responsibility, and trust in affection. Nine items\u0026nbsp;closely aligned with this study\u0026nbsp;were selected and subjected to renewed reliability testing. In this study, the Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; for this scale was 0.939, indicating good internal consistency reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Analysis Strategy and Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData computation primarily utilised SPSS and AMOS software within a Python 3.12 programming environment. Scientific computing and visualisation libraries including Pandas, NumPy, StatsModels, Scikit-learn, Matplotlib, and Seaborn were employed for auxiliary data preprocessing and visualisation. Key steps are outlined below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Preprocessing. Primarily executed using the pandas library, missing value imputation employed the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) method. This approach provides unbiased estimates when dealing with sparse random missing data, outperforming simple deletion or mean imputation methods[\u003csup\u003e46]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Reversed-scoring items in the social interaction scale were converted, and the total sports participation score was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation analysis. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each continuous variable, with Pearson correlation analysis conducted to preliminarily examine relationships between variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReliability and validity testing. Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; coefficients and composite reliability (CR) were calculated for each latent variable to assess reliability; average variance extracted (AVE) was computed to examine convergent validity; discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructural equation modelling analysis. Construct structural equation models using maximum likelihood estimation (ML) to test research hypotheses. Models encompass sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and interpersonal trust, controlling for gender, age, usage frequency, and duration of stay. Assess overall model fit via \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, GFI, and other indices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMediation effect testing. The Bootstrap method (5000 repeated samples) was employed to test the significance of two mediation pathways: \u0026quot;sports park quality \u0026rarr; sports participation \u0026rarr; interpersonal trust\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;sports park quality \u0026rarr; social interaction \u0026rarr; interpersonal trust\u0026quot;. Significance was determined by calculating the estimated indirect effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI); if the CI did not include zero, the mediation effect was deemed significant.All statistical analyses employed a significance level of p \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReliability and Validity Tests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the validity of subsequent structural equation modelling, reliability and validity tests were first conducted on the measurement model. The Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; coefficients for the four scales\u0026mdash;sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and interpersonal trust\u0026mdash;were 0.872, 0.734, 0.795, and 0.939 respectively, indicating good internal consistency[\u003csup\u003e47]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstruct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The KMO values for the four scales\u0026mdash;sports park quality, sports participation, social interaction, and interpersonal trust\u0026mdash;were 0.906, 0.886, 0.920, and 0.965 respectively, all exceeding 0.60. Furthermore, Bartlett\u0026apos;s sphericity test yielded significant results for all scales (p \u0026lt; 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis. All item loadings on their respective factors exceeded 0.50, demonstrating sound unidimensionality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the convergent validity analysis are presented in Table 2. Regarding composite reliability (CR), all latent variables exhibited CR values exceeding the 0.70 threshold, indicating high internal consistency of the measurement indicators. In terms of average variance extracted (AVE), the respective values were 0.603, 0.704, 0.683, and 0.735, demonstrating that the measurement model as a whole possesses sound convergent validity[\u003csup\u003e48]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results of Reliability and Convergent Validity Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"566\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 326px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc21593\"\u003eLatent Variable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc26137\"\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc5183\"\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 326px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc2212\"\u003e0.603\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc21198\"\u003e0.801\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 326px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc19392\"\u003e0.704\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc24667\"\u003e0.877\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 326px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc28411\"\u003e0.683\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc9368\"\u003e0.828\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 326px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc25868\"\u003e0.735\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc27330\"\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criteria, as shown in Table 3. The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variable exceeded the correlation coefficients between that latent variable and other latent variables, providing strong evidence for discriminant validity among the concepts\u003csup\u003e[\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 3.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Discriminant Validity Results\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"566\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc8391\"\u003e0.777\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc9323\"\u003e0.350\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc16034\"\u003e0.839\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc16600\"\u003e0.506\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc10850\"\u003e0.540\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc30936\"\u003e0.827\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc23112\"\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 116px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc15391\"\u003e0.006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc17589\"\u003e0.569\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp id=\"_Toc24334\"\u003e0.857\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 presents the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) for the four core continuous variables in this study, along with their Pearson correlation coefficient matrix. The mean scores for sports park quality (M = 18.009, SD = 6.641), sports participation (M = 28.936, SD = 13.392), social interaction (M = 18.061, SD = 6.94), and interpersonal trust total score (M = 26.971, SD = 10.44) were as follows.SD = 13.392), social interaction (M = 18.061, SD = 6.94), and interpersonal trust total scores (M = 26.971, SD = 10.472) all exhibited statistically significant positive correlations (all p-values \u0026lt; 0.001). This provides preliminary evidence supporting the examination of park quality\u0026apos;s influence on community trust via the mediating pathways of physical activity participation and social interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the weak positive correlations between park quality total scores and both physical participation total scores (r = 0.292) and social interaction total scores (r = 0.448) indicate that high-quality park environments moderately promote residents\u0026apos; physical activities and social engagement. The relatively weaker direct correlation between park quality total scores and trust total scores (r = 0.232) suggests this influence may rely more heavily on indirect pathways. The moderate positive correlation between total sports participation and total trust (r = 0.548) represents the strongest association within this model, indicating that physical activity may serve as a key bridge for enhancing community trust. The weak to moderate positive correlations between total social participation and both total trust (r = 0.360) and total sports participation (r = 0.430) further reinforce the logical chain among these variables.The mean absolute correlation coefficient was 0.385, indicating no concern regarding multicollinearity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc26326\"\u003eAll correlation coefficients between variables remained below 0.70. Combined with the prior discriminant validity tests, this further indicates no severe multicollinearity issues exist.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 4.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the main study variables. Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation; ** p \u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"566\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.641\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.448**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.971\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.472\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.232**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.360**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 97px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.936\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.392\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.292**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.430**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.548**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModel and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis Testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOverall Model Fit\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaving validated the measurement model, this study constructed a structural equation model incorporating control variables to test the research hypotheses. The model fit table summarises absolute, incremental, and parsimonious fit indices: \u0026chi;\u0026sup2; (246) = 277.53 (p = 0.08), \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df = 1.13 \u0026lt; 3, CFI = 0.998 \u0026gt; 0.95, TLI = 0.998 \u0026gt; 0.95,RMSEA = 0.012 (90% CI [0.007, 0.017]) \u0026lt; 0.05, SRMR = 0.014 \u0026lt; 0.05, GFI = 0.99 \u0026gt; 0.90.These indices all meet the academic community\u0026apos;s recognised standards for excellence, indicating that the theoretical model fits the observed data exceptionally well. This permits the model to be accepted for testing path hypotheses. It demonstrates that the theoretical model fits the data well\u0026nbsp;[\u003csup\u003e49]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDirect Effect Testing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the structural equation modelling (SEM) framework of this study, direct paths for five hypotheses were tested to verify the direct influence of perceived sports park quality on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust, as well as its direct associations with sports participation and social interaction. As shown in Table 5, these tests were conducted using maximum likelihood estimation (ML) combined with Bootstrap sampling (5000 resamples) on complete item data from 1916 respondents, yielding standardised path coefficients (\u0026beta;), standard errors (SE), t-values, and p-values. All direct paths were examined after controlling for covariates (gender, age, educational attainment, personal income, park usage frequency, and average time spent in the park). The model demonstrated excellent overall fit (CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.012), supporting the reliability of the pathways. Detailed results of the direct path tests are presented in Table 5 and Figure 2. The validation status of each research hypothesis is summarised as follows.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 indicates that when sports park quality exerts a direct influence on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient is \u0026beta; = 0.232, and this path exhibits significance at the 0.001 level (t = 10.425, p = 0.000 \u0026lt; 0.001).This direct effect indicates that for each standardised unit increase in perceived sports park quality, residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise by 0.232 units. This supports the theoretical assumption that physical environmental quality serves as a foundation for social trust. Consequently, research hypothesis H1 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the influence of sports park quality on sports participation, the standardised path coefficient is \u0026beta; = 0.263, and this path exhibited significance at the 0.001 level (t = 11.907, p \u0026lt; 0.001). This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in park spatial quality, residents\u0026apos; sports participation levels are projected to rise by 0.263 units, supporting the hypothesis that environmental characteristics drive engagement in health-related behaviours. Thus, research hypothesis H2 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 indicates that when sports park quality exerts a direct influence on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient was \u0026beta; = 0.232, and this path exhibits significance at the 0.001 level (t = 10.425, p = 0.000 \u0026lt; 0.001).This direct effect indicates that for each standardised unit increase in perceived sports park quality, residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise by 0.232 units. This supports the theoretical assumption that physical environmental quality serves as a foundation for social trust. Consequently, research hypothesis H1 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the influence of sports park quality on sports participation, the standardised path coefficient was \u0026beta; = 0.263, and this path exhibited significance at the 0.001 level (t = 11.907, p \u0026lt; 0.001). This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in park spatial quality, residents\u0026apos; sports participation levels are projected to rise by 0.263 units, supporting the hypothesis that environmental characteristics drive engagement in health-related behaviours. Thus, research hypothesis H2 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Regarding the impact of sports park quality on social interaction, the standardised path coefficient was \u0026beta; = 0.437, and this path was statistically significant at the 0.001 level (t = 21.276, p \u0026lt; 0.001).This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in park spatial quality, residents\u0026apos; social interaction levels are projected to rise by 0.437 units, supporting the hypothesis that high-quality public spaces foster social engagement. Thus, research hypothesis H3 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen examining the effect of sports participation on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient was \u0026beta; = 0.500, and this path was statistically significant at the 0.001 level (t = 25.200, p \u0026lt; 0.001).This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in sports participation, residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise significantly by 0.500 units, supporting the hypothesis that shared activity participation strengthens social trust. Thus, research hypothesis H4 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the influence of social interaction on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust, the standardised path coefficient was \u0026beta; = 0.344, and this path was statistically significant at the 0.001 level (t = 15.949, p \u0026lt; 0.001). This path indicates that for each standardised unit increase in social interaction, residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust levels are projected to rise by 0.344 units, supporting the hypothesis that social interaction and network support directly promote trust. Consequently, research hypothesis H6 holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, all five direct path hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4, H6) were supported by the data, establishing a robust foundation for subsequent testing of parallel mediating effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 5.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Results of the Direct Effect Test. Note: \u0026rarr; indicates the directional influence of the path.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"566\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 263px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS.E.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResult\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 263px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality \u0026rarr; Interpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.425\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 263px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality \u0026rarr; Sports Participation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.263\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.907\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 263px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Park Quality \u0026rarr; Social Interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.437\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 263px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports participation \u0026rarr; Interpersonal trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 263px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction \u0026rarr; Interpersonal Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.344\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 42px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.949\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupport\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe standardised path coefficients and their significance levels for this study\u0026apos;s theoretical model are fully presented in Figure 2. This path diagram not only visualises all direct hypothesis paths but also clearly demonstrates that sports park quality exerts the strongest direct influence on social interaction, while sports participation serves as the most potent conduit towards interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMediation Effect Testing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the structural equation modelling framework of this study, core mechanism testing was conducted to examine the mediating effects, verifying how sports park quality indirectly influences residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust through the pathways of sports participation and social interaction. This testing employed the Bootstrap method (5000 resamples) to calculate the indirect effect value (a \u0026times; b) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). All paths were tested after controlling for covariates (gender, age, educational attainment, personal income, park usage frequency, single visit duration). The model demonstrated excellent overall fit (CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.012), supporting the reliability of the mediation hypothesis. Detailed results are presented in Table 6.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSports park quality significantly and positively predicted sports participation (a\u003csub\u003e1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 0.263, p \u0026lt; 0.001), while sports participation exerted an extremely significant predictive effect on interpersonal trust (b\u003csub\u003e1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 0.426, p \u0026lt; 0.001). The product term representing the mediating effect (a\u003csub\u003e1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026times; b\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e), was 0.112, with a Bootstrap 95% confidence interval of [0.091, 0.132] that excluded zero, confirming the statistical significance of the mediating effect. After controlling for the mediating variable of sports participation, the direct effect of sports park quality on residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust (c\u0026apos; = 0.048) remained significant (p = 0.028).This indicates that research hypothesis H5 holds. Effect size decomposition reveals that this indirect effect accounts for 48.3% of the total effect (c = 0.232), suggesting that nearly half of the enhancement of residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust by sports park quality is achieved through motivating and accommodating residents\u0026apos; participation in sports activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSports park quality significantly and positively predicted social interaction (a\u003csub\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e= 0.437, p \u0026lt; 0.001), while social interaction also significantly and positively predicted interpersonal trust (b\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e= 0.165, p \u0026lt; 0.001).The mediation effect value (a\u003csub\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026times; b\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) was 0.072, with its 95% Bootstrap confidence interval [0.052, 0.090] also excluding zero. Concurrently, the direct path (c\u0026apos; = 0.048) remained significant. Thus, social interaction also played a significant partial mediating role, confirming research hypothesis H7.Effect size decomposition indicates this indirect effect accounts for 31.1% of the total effect (c = 0.232). Though lower than the sports participation pathway, its theoretical significance is undeniable. It reveals that high-quality sports parks directly create venues conducive to face-to-face exchanges, encouraging spontaneous or planned social interactions. These frequent, low-cost weak-tie interactions effectively reduce perceived social distance and uncertainty among residents, forming the foundation for cultivating generalised trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 6.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Mediation Effect Test Results\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"566\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Type\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffect Size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower limit of 95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper limit of 95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSports Participation mediating effect (a1\u0026times;b1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.132\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Interaction mediation effect (a2\u0026times;b2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.156\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.213\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect effect (c\u0026apos;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 181px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal effect (c)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.189\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 109px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.274\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaving separately validated the independent mediating effects of sports participation and social interaction, this study further assessed their concurrent mediating effects holistically. Analysis revealed that the total indirect effect value across both pathways was 0.184, with a 95% Bootstrap confidence interval of [0.156, 0.213], which did not include zero. The total effect (c) was 0.232 (95% CI [0.189, 0.274]). This result unequivocally supports research hypothesis H8: sports participation and social interaction constitute a statistically significant and substantively important parallel dual mediation mechanism in the process whereby sports park quality influences residents\u0026apos; interpersonal trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo visually compare the magnitude of contributions across pathways, Figure 3(a) decomposes the total effect into direct effects and the mediating effects of both sports participation and social interaction, clearly illustrating their respective proportions. Figure 3(b) presents the effect diagram with confidence intervals. As shown, the sports participation pathway accounts for the bulk of the total effect, visually confirming its central role as the dominant mediating mechanism. The social interaction pathway and direct pathway serve as important supplementary components.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Dominant Path of Sports Participation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study reveals that participation in sport constitutes a more potent mediating pathway, offering a significant complement to perspectives that solely emphasise public spaces as universal social platforms\u003csup\u003e[9]\u003c/sup\u003e. This finding suggests that when evaluating functionally specific spaces such as sports parks, attention must be paid to the unique social attributes of the core activities they facilitate. Sport participation may prove more effective in fostering trust because it simultaneously activates two mutually reinforcing psychosocial processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, sporting activities, particularly team or rule-based sports, constitute structured cooperative practices. Participants repeatedly experience and internalise a set of prosocial behavioural norms concerning cooperation, fairness, and reciprocity. According to social interdependence and norm internalisation theory, such shared experiential foundations shape individuals' generalised expectations of social interactions, thereby systematically elevating trust levels\u003csup\u003e[37]\u003c/sup\u003e. Secondly, the regular visits encouraged by high-quality sports parks create stable, high-frequency opportunities for repeated encounters. Social psychological research confirms that mere repeated exposure enhances liking and affinity, forming the foundation for trust development\u003csup\u003e[36]\u003c/sup\u003e. More crucially, sustained shared participation fosters social identity based on common activity affiliations, such as sports enthusiasts or park regulars. Social identity theory indicates that this ingroup identity constitutes the core psychological mechanism for eliciting deep trust and cooperation among members\u003csup\u003e[\u003c/sup\u003e\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn50\" id=\"#FNLinkFn50\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the quality of sports parks provides a robust behavioural foundation for building social trust by supporting activities that are normative, repetitive, and capable of shaping shared identities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAuxiliary Pathways for Social Interaction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significance of the social interaction pathway in this study supports traditional theoretical perspectives that public spaces expand social networks by fostering weak ties\u003csup\u003e[41]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, its relatively small effect size suggests we should examine the efficacy boundaries of this pathway in specific contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the sports park context, many meaningful social interactions directly stem from sporting activities themselves, such as technical exchanges during breaks or conversations based on shared interests\u003csup\u003e[9]\u003c/sup\u003e. This implies that part of social interaction's contribution to trust may already be statistically accounted for within the sports participation pathway. Nevertheless, the independent effect of this pathway remains significant. It demonstrates that high-quality park environments, by enhancing place attractiveness and willingness to linger, can provide residents with informal encounter opportunities. This holds foundational value for maintaining basic social familiarity within communities\u003csup\u003e[\u003c/sup\u003e\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn51\" id=\"#FNLinkFn51\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, compared to interactions centred around explicit shared activities, such encounters lacking structural focus may exhibit limitations in their efficiency for fostering deep trust.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Implications and Practical Guidance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings deepen our understanding of the mechanisms generating social benefits in public spaces. They suggest that a space's social function lies not merely in facilitating encounters, but in enabling shared participation in specific types of social practice\u003csup\u003e[10]\u003c/sup\u003e. For sports parks, the normative, repetitive nature and identity-building potential inherent in their core activities are key to generating high social returns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the aforementioned mechanism analysis, the following specific and prioritised planning implications can be derived. Firstly, in resource allocation, management authorities should prioritise safeguarding and maintaining core facilities that support collective, rule-based sporting activities, such as standard pitches, running tracks and multi-purpose fitness zones. These facilities constitute the material prerequisite for activating efficient trust-building pathways, and their social return on investment warrants particular attention. Second, spatial design should strategically integrate active sports facilities with passive leisure zones. For instance, positioning rest areas along pitch boundaries or running tracks can naturally guide behavioural transitions from sporting activities to social interaction, thereby synergistically enhancing overall societal benefits\u003csup\u003e[9]\u003c/sup\u003e. Third, within community governance, social integration programmes utilising sports parks as platforms should prioritise cultivating sustainable, activity-based social groups, such as community sports clubs. Such interventions can leverage multiple trust-building mechanisms\u003csup\u003e[37][51]\u003c/sup\u003e, potentially yielding superior outcomes compared to one-off, general social events.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Limitations and Future Prospects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations. The cross-sectional design restricts the certainty of causal inferences, self-reported data may be subject to common method bias, and the geographical concentration of the sample necessitates validation of conclusions across broader cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research may strengthen causal arguments through longitudinal or experimental designs, incorporating objective measures such as behavioural observation. Subsequent studies should explore how individual differences moderate the relative efficacy of these pathways. For instance, personality traits and motor skill levels may influence an individual's propensity to build trust through physical activity versus social interaction. Community-level characteristics, socioeconomic composition, and residential stability may also shape the social utility of these behavioural pathways. Another promising avenue involves applying this model to other types of public spaces, systematically comparing their dominant trust-building mechanisms. For instance, might the social interaction pathway become the dominant mechanism in community gardens or street squares? Such comparative research would contribute to developing a more universally applicable theoretical framework for environmental behaviour and social capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a parallel mediation model to examine how the quality of sports parks influences residents' interpersonal trust. Findings indicate that sports park quality not only directly and positively predicts interpersonal trust but also exerts an indirect effect through two parallel pathways: sports participation (accounting for 48.3% of the indirect effect) and social interaction (31.1%). Among these, sports participation emerges as the relatively dominant mediating pathway.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe core theoretical contribution lies in quantitatively demonstrating that trust formation within functionally oriented spaces like sports parks primarily relies on the internalisation of norms and identity formation mechanisms triggered by sporting activities, with generalised social interaction playing a supplementary role. Consequently, these findings deepen our understanding of the ''public space-social capital'' relationship: the social benefits of public spaces depend not only on facilitating encounters but also on supporting activities inherently possessing strong social integration functions, namely sports participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractically, this suggests that enhancing the social benefits of sports parks should prioritise optimising key dimensions influencing residents' perceived quality to effectively incentivise sports participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary limitations of this study lie in its cross-sectional design and reliance on subjective perception data. Future research could integrate longitudinal data, GIS data, and objective environmental audits or street-view image-based assessments to further validate the model's generalisability and explore individual and community-level moderating factors influencing the relative strengths of these two pathways.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the participants’ legal guardian/ next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. The institution granted the exemption is QuFu Normal University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).Participation was entirely voluntary, and confidentiality was ensured through data anonymisation and restricted access to research team members.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to the sensitive nature of the data and to protect participant confidentiality, the datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of this study. XH.G initially proposed the research topic and finalized the research title. Material preparation was conducted by XH.G and X.L, while questionnaire distribution and data collection were carried out by X.L, XH.G and MZ.G Data analysis was performed by XH.G The initial manuscript was drafted collaboratively by XH.G and X.L, with subsequent revisions and refinements made by MZ.G. All authors participated in the manuscript revision process and approved the final version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlease contact MZ.G directly for inquiries or to request materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThis research received no funding support.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePutnam, R. D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon \u0026amp; Schuster, N/A. (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGlaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J. A., \u0026amp; Soutter, C. L. Measuring Trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 811-846. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926. (2000).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeyden, K. M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 1546-1551. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546. (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSallis, J. F., et al. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 297-322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100. (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLund, H. Testing the Claims of New Urbanism: Local Access, Pedestrian Travel, and Neighboring Behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 414-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976328. (2003).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaczynski, A. T., \u0026amp; Henderson, K. A. Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 315-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701394865. (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00119-2. (2004).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., \u0026amp; Cohen, D. A. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 159-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024. (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeters, K., Elands, B., \u0026amp; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.11.003. (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKazmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007. (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJennings, V., \u0026amp; Bamkole, O. The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030452. (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCohen, D. A., et al. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 509-514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447. (2007).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJenkins, G. R., Yuen, H. K., \u0026amp; Rose, E. J. The Benefits of Urban Parks: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Journal of Urban Health, 794-825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9987-7. (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFan, Y., et al. How do urban parks design features influence social interaction? A systematic review. Urban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 127732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127732. (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchipperijn, J., et al. Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening, 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.12.002. (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSun, Y., Tan, S., He, Q., \u0026amp; Shen, J. Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031466. (2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMullenbach, L. E., et al. Cultivating social capital in diverse, low-income neighborhoods: The value of parks for parents with young children. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104313. (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEwing, R., \u0026amp; Handy, S. Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design. 14(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800802451155 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology. 65, 541-579. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilliams D R, Vaske J J. The measurement of place attachment in recreation and natural resource settings[J]. Forest Science, 2003, 49(6): 830-840.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaplan S, Kaplan R. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press. (1989).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFredrickson, B. L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218\u0026ndash;226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., \u0026amp; Brunson, L. Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823\u0026ndash;851. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022294028903 (1998).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrown, G., Schebella, M. F., \u0026amp; Weber, D. Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning. 121, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006 (2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNasar, J. L. Assessing perceptions of environments for active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 34(4), 357-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.013 (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaruthaveeran, S., \u0026amp; van den Bosch, C. C. K. A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces \u0026ndash; A systematic review. Urban Forestry \u0026amp; Urban Greening. 31, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.017 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGehl, J. Life between buildings: Using public space. Island Press. (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGiles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., ... \u0026amp; Donovan, R. J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 169\u0026ndash;176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018 (2005).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFloyd, M. F., Bocarro, J. N., Smith, W. R., Baran, P. K., Moore, R. C., Cosco, N. G., ... \u0026amp; Fang, K. Park-based physical activity among children and adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(3), 258\u0026ndash;265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.04.013 (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVeitch, J., Salmon, J., \u0026amp; Ball, K. The validity and reliability of an instrument to assess children\u0026apos;s outdoor play in various locations. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 15(5), 421\u0026ndash;425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.01.001 (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhyte, W. H. The social life of small urban spaces. Project for Public Spaces. (1980).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScopelliti M, Giuliani M V, Fornara F. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4): 423-432.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002 (2004)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTausch, N., Schmid, K., \u0026amp; Hewstone, M. The social psychology of intergroup relations. In G. Salomon \u0026amp; E. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook on peace education (pp. 75\u0026ndash;86). Psychology Press. (2010).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZajonc, R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848 (1968).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., \u0026amp; Sherif, C. W. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. (1961).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNicholson, M., \u0026amp; Hoye, R. (Eds.). Sport and social capital. Routledge. (2008).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., \u0026amp; Payne, W. R. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for adults: Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-135 (2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons. (1964).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGranovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360\u0026ndash;1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 (1973).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUslaner, E. M. The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press. (2002).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eK.M. Maniruzzaman, Ali Alqahtany, Antar Abou-Korin, Faez S. Al-Shihri. An analysis of residents\u0026rsquo; satisfaction with attributes of urban parks in Dammam city, Saudi Arabia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal,12(3),3365-3374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.11.020. (2021)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiang, D., and Liu, S. The relationship between stress level and physical exercise for college students. Chin. Ment. Health J. 8, 5\u0026ndash;6. (1994).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSkjaeveland, O., Garling, T., \u0026amp; Maeland, J. G. A multidimensional measure of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(3), 413-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512029 (1996).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRotter, J. B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651\u0026ndash;665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x (1967).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnders, C. K., \u0026amp; Bandalos, D. L. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430-457. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNunnally, J. C., \u0026amp; Bernstein, I. H. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. (1994).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFornell, C., \u0026amp; Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. DOI: 10.1177/002224378101800104 (1981).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKline, R. B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press. (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTajfel, H., \u0026amp; Turner, J. C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel \u0026amp; W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7\u0026ndash;24). Nelson-Hall (1986).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaas, J., van Dillen, S. M., Verheij, R. A., \u0026amp; Groenewegen, P. P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health \u0026amp; Place, 15(2), 586-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"sports parks quality, sports participation, social interaction, interpersonal trust, parallel mediation model","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651721/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651721/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eInterpersonal trust forms the core of community social capital. This study examines how sports park quality influences residents' interpersonal trust through two parallel pathways: sports participation and social interaction. Based on questionnaire data from 1,916 residents in Shandong Province, China, structural equation modelling and Bootstrap methods were employed for analysis. Results indicate: 1) Sports park quality not only directly and positively predicts interpersonal trust but also significantly and positively predicts sports participation and social interaction. 2) Both sports participation and social interaction significantly and positively predict interpersonal trust. 3) Both sports participation and social interaction exert significant partial mediating effects between sports park quality and interpersonal trust, forming a parallel dual-mediation mechanism. Sports participation mediates 48.3% of the total effect, surpassing social interaction's 31.1% contribution. This study reveals the ''space-behaviour-psychology'' mechanism, providing empirical evidence and theoretical insights for fostering community trust through high-quality public space planning.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Promoting Role of Sports Park Quality on Interpersonal Trust Among Residents: A Parallel Mediation Model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-17 04:54:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8651721/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-16T06:15:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-01T23:42:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-20T06:29:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"178733998359304835697048679172240158615","date":"2026-02-17T02:20:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"199814301332358522989285455832646990570","date":"2026-02-12T03:08:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-11T23:24:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-11T23:18:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-29T03:27:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-26T03:28:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2026-01-26T03:20:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"743c8ed7-3aef-43ba-b962-a1d9d6f94e9b","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 17th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":62819179,"name":"Humanities/Health humanities"},{"id":62819180,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":62819181,"name":"Social science/Psychology"},{"id":62819182,"name":"Social science/Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-06T08:38:30+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-17 04:54:31","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8651721","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8651721","identity":"rs-8651721","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}