Next Article in Journal
The Combination of Anaerobic Digestion and Electro-Oxidation for Efficient COD Removal in Beverage Wastewater: Investigation of Electrolytic Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Customer Experience in Sports Centres: Adaptation and Validation of a Measurement Scale
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Spatio-Temporal Characteristics and Influence Path of High-Quality Economic Development from the Perspective of Urban Land Transfer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065550
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Local Impact of a Sports Centre: Effects on Future Intentions

by
Lucciano Testa
1,
David Parra-Camacho
1,
Ana María Gómez-Tafalla
1,
Fernando Garcia-Pascual
1 and
Daniel Duclos-Bastías
2,*
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Universidad de Valencia, 46010 Valencia, Spain
2
School of Physical Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2374631, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5550; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065550
Submission received: 19 January 2023 / Revised: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 17 March 2023 / Published: 22 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sport Science and Sustainable Social Development)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Analysing the social impact of sports facilities is important because they can have a positive impact on the health and well-being of the people who use them, foster social inclusion and participation, and be an important source of employment and local economic development. This study aimed to analyse the perception of residents of the city of Valencia on the impact of a sports facility and its influence on their future intentions about the services it provides. The sample consisted of 209 residents, of whom 113 were men and 96 were women. The sample rated positively all social impact factors of the sports facility analysed. Regression analyses revealed that two of the five social impact factors (health impact, socio-cultural impact, and image and promotion impact) significantly predict future intentions. Therefore, analysing the social impact of sports facilities provides managers with essential information to ensure a positive integration into the community and in turn, promote active and healthy lifestyles. As well as the influence of this impact on residents’ future behaviours towards the sports facility.

1. Introduction

Physical inactivity has become one of the main problems of today’s society, increasing year after year [1], creating a progressive deterioration of the population’s well-being and establishing itself as the fourth mortality factor [2], directly related to the increase in obesity generating cardiovascular diseases, type II diabetes, and some types of cancer [3]. Numerous studies show the benefits of physical activity as a means of improving muscular fitness, cardiorespiratory fitness, health and bone integrity [4]. It also reduces the risk of hypertension, the probability of suffering cerebrovascular accidents, decreases the rates of depression, stress and anxiety, improves self-esteem and self-confidence, and is a tool that enriches the physical and emotional state. In addition, Márquez-Rosa [5] has shown that regular practice is a basis for working to reduce violence or risky behaviour among young people, such as, for example, drug use. It is also worth mentioning that physically active people are more satisfied with their lives and happier than those who are inactive [6].
Globally, the data presented by the World Health Organisation shows that one in four adults and more than 80% of the adolescent population do not comply with a minimum level of physical activity, while in Spain, 46% report only a minimum frequency of once a week, which is slightly above the European average (European Commission, 2014). The 2018 Eurobarometer shows that 7% of the European population practice some sport regularly and 33% do so with some regularity, while in Spain, it is 14% and 29%, respectively. Despite these negative figures, we can see that in recent years these rates have gradually increased [7].
For all these reasons, it is justified that training and, therefore, the creation and use of sports centres is a good resource that helps society to maintain a good state of health and reduce risk factors. Although the origins of these spaces were only related to martial arts and bodybuilding, today there is a wide variety of services, incorporating different areas of training, progressively increasing the offer and competitiveness in the market [7].
In the last National Census of Sports Facilities, carried out by the Consejo Superior de Deportes in 2005, there were 176,201 facilities in Spain, which has been increasing year after year. This can be seen in the number of fitness centres, which have around 4000 gyms, with some 4.32 million members. This is one of the main markets in Europe, which coincides with the increase in the number of practitioners, and which is one of the world leaders in leisure facilities, responding to the current growing demand [8].
The aim of this research is to highlight the social impact generated by sports centres in cities. To this end, the first objective is to analyse the perception of a sample of residents of the city of Valencia on the social impact of a sports centre located in a district of the city, as well as to analyse whether there are differences according to various variables of interest. The second objective is to test the influence of residents’ perceptions of the impacts of the sports centre on their future intentions with respect to it.

1.1. Social Impact of Sports Centres

Social impact can be defined as the degree of incidence or affectation that an event, organisation, or service has on society, focusing on people as direct recipients [9]. This is assessed on the basis of different areas, ranging from how it affects cultural, political and economic development, its planning character, its positive or negative effect, its tangibility and even the terms of time, space, and duration [10]. Sports centres are an integral part of the social fabric of communities, providing a space for people to meet, be physically active and socialise. In recent years, the importance of the social impact of sports facilities has been increasingly recognised, and researchers have pointed to the potential of sports facilities to positively influence a range of social effects [11,12]. As most of these effects are considered to be specific and contextual to the community under study [13], managers of these sports facilities should focus on them when managing them. In order to minimise the negative impacts and promote the use of new technologies, it is essential to take into account the policies and laws of the country, the differences in public and private participation, and to be aware of the changes this will bring to the local population.
The most evident is the effect that the proximity to these spaces generates, intensely favouring sports participation in general [14,15], especially among local youth [16]. Similarly, their accessibility will promote an environment conducive to improving physical activity levels and reducing sedentary lifestyles [17].
The socio-cultural impact is reflected in the generation of values, the development of teamwork, solidarity, loyalty, tolerance and personal fulfilment [18]. Fostering these values stimulates cooperation and social cohesion through the active participation of citizens, making it a valuable tool in the educational and community area [19]. It is affirmed that sport helps to achieve integral societies, as it has a universal language and is based on collaboration, improving social relations as a key factor in the quality of life [20]. Likewise, this type of activity facilitates the integration of migrants and supports intercultural dialogue, as evidenced in Spain, where there is a large influx of people from all five continents [21]. Spaaij and Westerbeek [22] support the idea that sports and other associative activities make up the social capital that contributes to the construction of culture and community spirit. Having common norms, reciprocity of behaviour and mutual trust are resources that will affect health-related outcomes and sport participation [23].
On the other hand, in terms of image and promotion, sports centres are places of high outward visibility [24], making them an attractive factor for visitors, residents, businesses, and investors, which translates into marketing [25] and neighbourhood social capital [14]. For example, catalysing redevelopment, the reuse of buildings and vacant land, renewing the image of the district [26,27] and revaluing the city, allow social communities to interact with each other [28]. This will generate recognition of the neighbourhood, publicity, an atmosphere of hospitality from neighbours, an opportunity to increase the interactions between individuals in the sector and together create progress, and cannot be conceived as a project isolated from the reality of its context. Chapin [29] considers that sports can be used as a means to compete for the relocation of businesses and new homes, and can be an effective tool for the management of a locality. Over time, and with good use, it will result in a good community identity [30].
Sports facilities have the potential to have a positive social impact in a number of areas, such as promoting physical activity and health, improving mental health, fostering community engagement and social cohesion, promoting diversity and inclusion, and generating economic benefits. However, it is important to carefully consider the potential social consequences of sports facilities and take measures to address any negative impacts. Ashworth [31], in his research, defines the creation of “place branding”, a concept of environmental identity based on the ability to gain various benefits, such as increased market revenue or popularity of the area, thus creating some uniqueness, which differentiates them from others. This results in an outwardly competitive brand value, to the point that the residents of the neighbourhood love their environment and recommend it to others.
It is also important to highlight the importance that a sports facility has on the social capital of the population in general and on its customers in particular. One of the most important authors who defines and analyses social capital is Robert Putman, who defined social capital as those characteristics of the organization at a social level, such as norms or networks, which facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit [32]. He also argues that social capital has considerable effects on both individuals and communities themselves.
In the context of sports facilities, social capital can be understood as the benefits that members receive from their interactions with other members. Baum and Ziersch [33] concluded that social networks are an important element of social capital in sports facilities. They argue that sports facilities have the capacity to offer their customers the opportunity to establish social ties and a strong sense of belonging. Years later, Crossley [34] analysed social capital in the same context, in which he concluded that private sports centres play an important role in building social capital.
Finally, physical activity plays a fundamental role in the economy of cities. The report carried out by the España Activa Foundation reflected that in 2020, in Spain, it represents 3.3% of the GDP related to the sporting practice of the majority of the population and that it is directly linked to the development and creation of these sports facilities. The associated investments by the state and private organisations can promote job creation, real estate development, and growth in the value of surrounding properties [35], and sometimes include the relocation of existing businesses and reduced property taxes on the land used [29]. In contrast, there are studies that argue that these impacts cannot be linked with certainty to significant growth in the surrounding areas after a new facility has been built [36], as the environment may be growing naturally and not as a consequence of the new facility [37]. In this regard, it is worth noting that most of the analyses mentioned above have been carried out at the mega-metropolitan and large-scale level, due to possible data limitations in smaller geographic areas [29]. Baade & Dye [38] note these uncertainties as a warning to those who make strong claims of a large positive impact. Understanding the social component that originates from the opening of a sports service, such as a sports centre, raises many factors to be analysed that help in the understanding of this important component. García-Pascual et al. [11], in their paper, define five social factors that help in this analysis. The impact on health, as well as the impact on physical activity habits, refers to the benefits provided by a place of sports practice where the benefits on the health of the residents of the town predominate through the practice of physical activity, helping to improve the quality of life of the residents. The socio-cultural impact also derives in social benefits for the municipality that hosts these sports facilities because they can help to promote social values, such as solidarity or cultural exchange, as well as help to preserve and strengthen the cultural traditions of the town. Another very important social factor is the socio-economic factor, as it measures aspects such as labour benefits by increasing the labour supply through job creation, consumption, or commercial investment in the municipality where the sports facility is located. Finally, the social factor that measures the impact on the image and promotion is defined, due to the good image offered by physical activity and sports, these sports venues will gain a positive image in the town and its surroundings, even the organisation of sporting events helps the promotion and recognition of the municipality or town.

1.2. Relationship between Future Intentions and Social Impact

Business leaders must be proactive in their analysis to increase customer loyalty, as this can be critical to the durability of their use of the service. According to Oliver [39], loyalty includes affective, behavioural and attitudinal aspects, and manifests itself in a strong commitment to buy or use a service again. In addition, consumer preferences can be influenced by the emotions evoked by the service, including immediate neurophysiological changes that are difficult to assess due to their intangible and subjective nature [40]. However, Silla-Merchán et al. [41] argue that it is important to take these emotional processes and their regulators into account when assessing customer loyalty.
In the case of sports facilities, it is crucial to assess users’ future behaviours in order to identify the barriers and facilitators that affect the practice of regular exercise and, therefore, to promote the health and well-being of the population.
Therefore, this broad and comprehensive analysis is required to understand the extent to which predilection can be managed through marketing tactics to elicit consumer needs. This will result in a reduction of changes in competition, tolerance to price increases and, as a consequence, an increase in possible recommendations influenced by perceived benefits, such as improvements in health, in the economy itself, or in social values such as trust and interpersonal relationships [42]. León-Quismondo et al. [43], demonstrated that these decisions are determinants for the success of sports centres and for their long-term sustainability.
There are several theories that attempt to explain the decision-making process and choices. However, one of the most widely used is the Social Exchange Theory which was used in the field of psychology by Thibaut and Kelley in the 1960s and promotes a cost-benefit analysis in human relationships. This theory has been used by different authors in the field of sports to assess the willingness to participate in exchanges or supportive behaviours according to the perception of their impact [44,45]. This theory defends the idea that people are willing to participate more if they believe that the rewards outweigh the disadvantages [46]. Xu et al. [47], in their study on residents’ perceptions of the Beijing 2022 Olympic Games, show that residents are enthusiastic about the event and are willing to join the process when they perceive positive impacts.
On the other hand, nowadays, attrition is the main concern in sport management, although there is a considerable increase in membership in the industry, there are studies that show the opposite in the future intentions of these services [48,49]. Therefore, achieving positive emotions is the goal, as it reinforces the user’s continuity in their activity plan, as well as their predisposition to increase the frequency and duration of their activity. The motivational orientation may be due to the proximity to these centres for medium and long-term users [50].
MacIntosh and Law [51] examined the reasons why people join, maintain, and cancel a fitness training membership, and found that half of the users did not renew their membership after the first year, with a lack of time and changes in family dynamics being the main causes.
Social cohesion and equality have a significant influence on sports facilities in cities. Social cohesion is generally defined as solidarity and trust between members of a community, which can be fostered through participation in sports [52]. Studies have shown that social cohesion factors in neighbourhoods, such as safety, trust, positive social bonds, helping others, and the absence of crime, can prevent health problems [53]. Sports facilities that offer community sports programmes can also improve the health of socially vulnerable groups by promoting social cohesion rather than physical fitness or physical form [54]. Social cohesion and equality have a significant impact on consumer loyalty in sports centres. Consumer interaction, brand-community relationships, and consumer value co-creation willingness are all factors that influence consumer loyalty [55]. Sports can bring people together and drive social justice, while ethical values and transcendent motives can also play a role in consumer participation in co-creation [56]. For this, different aspects of customers’ relationships with the brand community can influence their intentions towards the sports centre. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
Sports facilities have an impact on social cohesion, equality and equity that influences the future intentions of their customers.
A sports centre is a facility that provides opportunities for people to engage in physical activities and sports. Access to sports facilities can lead to increased physical activity, which can reduce the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus [57]. However, income inequality may limit access to these facilities for some citizens, leading to a gap in community sports [58]. Physical activity is an important part of a healthy lifestyle and can have a positive impact on the health of a community. To promote physical activity in a town with sports facilities, there are several strategies that can be employed. These include creating accessible parks and recreation facilities, providing physical education in schools, encouraging employers to promote physical activity, and involving multiple sectors in the area [59]. Accessibility to sports facilities is also an important factor in determining physical activity habits and consumer loyalty [17]. Closer proximity to sports facilities has been associated with increased participation in physical activity. Studies have also found that the servicescape, consumption motivation, emotional experience, and space flow all contribute to enhancing consumer loyalty [60]. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Sports facilities have an impact on the health of local residents that also influences the future behaviour of their customers.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
The impact on physical activity levels and habits influences the future intentions of sports facilities customers.
Sports can enhance social and cultural life by bringing together individuals and communities. Sports can help to overcome differences and encourage dialogue, thereby breaking down prejudice, stereotypes, cultural differences, ignorance, intolerance, and discrimination. Participation in sports is influenced by many social factors such as people’s age, gender, disability, and social groups. Various sports participation opportunities arise along with increasing social interests in health and the development of markets in the sports industry [58]. The power of sports and physical activity can bring together and drive social justice.
The practice of sports is one of the main elements in the physical and psychological well-being of society. Abdolmaleki et al. [61], analysed the role of socio-cultural factors in consumer behaviour in relation to sports. They concluded that socio-cultural factors play an important role in shaping consumer behaviour towards sports activities. In conclusion, socio-cultural factors play an important role in shaping consumer behaviour towards sporting activities. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). 
The establishment of sports facilities influences the socio-cultural impact of the locality and, in turn, the future behaviour of customers.
There is a strong relationship between the socio-economic impacts and sports facilities. Studies have shown that socio-economic status is a critical factor in determining participation in sports and physical activity [62]. Lower socio-economic status neighbourhoods tend to have fewer sports facilities, which can hinder the ability of those of lower socio-economic status to participate in sports. A study examining youth experiences related to sports and physical activity by socio-economic factors found that there were significant differences between those from higher and lower socio-economic status backgrounds [63]. Another study examined the geographical association between the provision of sports facilities and participation in sports across an entire Australian population, finding that the socio-economic status was associated with the rate of participation, the rate of regular participation, and the level of organisation of the context of participation [64]. This suggests that access to adequate sports facilities is important for promoting physical activity among all socio-economic groups. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). 
The socio-economic impact of a sports facility influences the future intentions of its customers.
Image and promotion have a significant influence on the future intentions of health club consumers. Research has shown that perceptions of a corporate image can trigger trust and brand recognition through credibility, which in turn affects users’ future attitudes and intentions [65]. In addition, service convenience, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty are important factors in determining consumer loyalty [66]. Leisure involvement also plays an important role in gym repurchase intention by mediating business friendships [67]. Overall, image and promotion are key elements that can affect consumer loyalty in fitness clubs. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 6 (H6). 
Sports facilities can have an impact on image and promotion which in turn can influence the future behaviour of their customers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The study population consisted of 209 residents of the city of Valencia, 113 men and 96 women, representing 54% and 46% respectively. The characteristics of this sample were divided into four age groups from 18 to 80 years old, with a mean of 41.29 (SD = 17.57). In relation to occupation, more than half are employed (51%), followed by students (24.3%), a small percentage are retired or pensioners (16.7%) and unemployed (2.6%). On the other hand, according to the district of residence, 65% of those interviewed are residents of the district of Algirós (the district in which the sports centre analysed is located) and 35% reside in other districts of the city. Finally, 73% are active users of the sports centre studied. This sports centre has a fitness room, a guided activities room, and an indoor cycling room, among others. It also offers personal training and physiotherapy services. It has a wide range of guided activities. In this study, a non-probabilistic convenience sample was used, considering as an inclusion criteria that the interviewee was a resident of the city of Valencia, over 18 years of age, with at least one year of residence, in order to rule out tourists or temporary visitors with little knowledge of the phenomenon under study. In this sense, it was also considered as a criterion for the selection of participants that they were both users and non-users of the sports centre and, in the case that they had not been users of the centre, that they were aware of its existence and the activities that were carried out there.

2.2. Instrument

For the measurement, a questionnaire consisting of 26 items on possible positive impacts of the facility was used, including socio-demographic data such as age, sex, level of education, residence, and whether they are users or non-users of the sports centre. The survey is an adaptation of the Social Impact study by García-Pascual et al. [11], considering the following impact dimensions: Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity (3 items), Impact on health (4 items), Impact on physical activity habits and levels (5 items), Socio-cultural impact (5 items), Socio-economic impact (6 items), Impact on image and promotion (3 items). As for the Future intentions scale, there are four items adapted from the Zeithaml et al. study [68]. All items had a Likert-type scale with five response options: Strongly agree (5), agree (4), neither agree nor disagree (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). Table 1 below shows the internal consistency of the dimensions used to measure their reliability, using Cronbach’s alpha. As can be seen, there is internal consistency in the dimensions analysed, since according to the literature [69] they are above the cut-off point (0.70).

2.3. Procedure

The fieldwork was carried out in May 2021, using two methods, face-to-face and online. Firstly, the sports centre lent its spaces for the collection inside the venue as well as its website to carry it out telematically. Secondly, four strategic points, which were close to the facility, were chosen for the sample collection among residents of the city, after consultation as to whether or not they were residents of the city in order to exclude them from tourists or temporary visitors. Participants needed about 15 min to answer the survey. All persons voluntarily agreed to participate and were informed of the full confidentiality of their answers. This study was carried out at the University of Valencia, where the approval of the Ethics Committee was not needed. This university, in its Ethics and Human Research Committee department, does not consider consent necessary to carry out an opinion survey on a professional situation, or topic with different aspects. The study protocol adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and it was not necessary to receive the approval of the Ethics Committee of the Universitat de València because, according to the Ethics and Human Research Committee of this university, it is not necessary to obtain approval to conduct an opinion survey on a topic or issue, professional situation, or satisfaction with certain issues.
However, it is mandatory to include a preamble in the survey with the information presented about the project (topic and purpose), the benefits that the information collected by the survey may bring, the willingness to participate, and the anonymous treatment of the data (Data Protection Act). It is also mandatory to indicate a contact person to ask for more information and to put a paragraph in which the respondent voluntarily accepts their participation in the research and tacitly gives his/her consent by answering the survey. Thus, following these guidelines indicated by the Ethics and Human Research Committee of the University of Valencia to develop this type of research, all this information was added at the beginning of the questionnaire.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Different statistical tests were used to analyse the results, using the SPSS v.26 statistical software. Firstly, T-tests for independent samples, with prior application of Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances. Secondly, a one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the application of the Bonferroni and Tamhane post hoc tests for multiple comparisons, depending on the existence or not of homogeneous variances, and finally a multiple linear regression analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Residents’ Perceptions of the Impacts of the Sports Centre

Table 2 shows data on residents’ perceptions of the social impact of the sports centre. High scores are observed in the Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity, the Impact on health, the Impact on physical activity habits and levels, and the Impact on image and promotion, with averages exceeding the value of four on the scale, indicating a tendency towards agreement among respondents. On the other hand, the perception of the Socio-cultural impact and the Socio-economic impact show averages close to 3.5.

3.2. Differences in Means in Relation to Socio-Demographic Characteristics

At this point, we can highlight the statistically significant differences in relation to being a user or non-user of the sports centre (p < 0.01), showing that users have higher mean scores than non-users (Table 3). As with the residence variable, in which statistically significant differences were observed in most of the dimensions (p < 0.01), except in the Impact on physical activity habits and levels, where residents obtained higher mean scores. In the sex variable, only in the Socio-cultural impact (p = 0.02), men have a higher score than women on this question. In the other socio-demographic variables such as age, level of studies and occupation, there were no significant differences.

3.3. Influence of Perceived Impacts on Future Intentions

A multiple linear regression analysis was performed taking the dimensions of the Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity, the Impact on health, the Impact on physical activity habits and levels, the Socio-cultural impact, the Socio-economic impact, and the Impact on the image as independent variables and the Future intentions as dependent. To include the independent variables, we checked that they were not collinear using the collinearity statistics (tolerance and IVF). The Durbin-Watson index showed a value of 1.87, which is an indicator of the assumption of independence of the variables taken as independent, with respect to the dependent variables. The Social Impact dimensions were found to predict 48.6% of the variance of Future intentions (Table 4). The coefficients showed that the Image and Promotion impact (β = 0.350, p < 0.05), the Health impact (β = 0.199, p < 0.05) and the Socio-cultural impact (β = 0.197, p < 0.05) significantly predicted residents’ future intentions for the sports centre. They were followed, although not significantly, by the Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity (β = 0.098, p = 0.230), the Impact on physical activity habits and levels (β = 0.019, p = 0.808) and finally the Socio-economic impact (β= −0.046, p = 0.554).

4. Discussion

The fitness industry has grown considerably in recent years, with the emergence of fitness centres in municipalities around the world. While the main purpose of these centres is to provide a place for people to improve their physical health and well-being, they also have the potential to create a positive social impact in the areas where they are located. These sports facilities are becoming increasingly popular in cities and towns around the world, as they offer people a place to engage in physical activity and socialise with others. However, the construction and operation of these facilities can also have a significant impact on the locality in which they are located.
The first purpose of this study was to analyse the perception that a sample of residents of the city of Valencia has of the social impact generated by a sports centre.
In the perception of the impact on health, the responses were mostly positive, as was the case for the item on levels of physical activity, understood as the residents’ interest in practising sports. Both items have the highest positive ratings. In the study by Karusisi et al. [70], it was observed that sports facilities had a considerable influence on the increase of sports practice. Chang and Barrett [71] argue that the presence of a sports facility in a neighbourhood was associated with lower rates of obesity and chronic diseases. This is likely due to the increased access to physical activity and healthy lifestyle choices offered by sports facilities. Along these lines, Zhang and Wang [72] examined the social impact of a sports facility, concluding that the facility had a positive influence on residents’ physical health and mental well-being by providing them with a safe and accessible place to engage in physical activity. The facility also helped to foster a sense of belonging to the community among residents by providing a meeting place for social events and activities.
This research also reflects a positive assessment of the facility in terms of the image, openness, and recognition of the neighbourhood to the rest of the city. In relation to this result, Smith et al. [73] stated that the construction of a new sports facility in a residential neighbourhood led to an increase in property values and a decrease in crime rates.
Sports undoubtedly create a change in the economy [74] and will always have positive repercussions, increasing the number of visitors to cities [75], and leading to higher commercial returns for localities [76,77]. In this research, this is not so noticeable, as the results do not reflect this strongly and have the lowest averages. These results may be due to the fact that the repercussion of the economic impact of a sports facility is complex, being very significant to the municipality where it is located. For example, in their work, Rodríguez and Hernández [78] found that individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds were less likely to access these sports services due to economic barriers. This highlights the need for policies and initiatives aimed at increasing the accessibility and affordability of sports facilities for all members of the locality. Kim and Lee [79], in their work, also found that low-income and marginalised municipalities may be disproportionately affected by the construction and operation of a sports facility, as they may be more vulnerable to displacement or other negative impacts. In addition, local businesses in these municipalities may find it difficult to compete with larger, more established businesses that often relocate to serve the facility and its visitors. Therefore, implementing policies and initiatives, such as local hiring or support for local businesses, would help to mitigate potential adverse effects in terms of the negative economic impact that may result.
The results of the analysis of the sample of users indicate that the dimensions of health-related social impacts, socio-cultural aspects, and image and promotion have a significant influence on users’ future intentions (confirming the hypotheses H2, H4 and H6). This suggests that users are likely to show long-term loyalty to the programmes and services, and will positively recommend them to their environment. Importantly, these dimensions of social impact are key to assessing the long-term success of any programme or service, as they show the impact they have on users’ lives. The future behaviours of sports centre users have been a variable that has been widely analysed in the sport management literature [80,81]. This variable allows us to know how users will behave in the future through the experiences they have had and the degree of satisfaction obtained with the sports service.
Research has shown that consumers who perceive that a company has a positive social impact are more likely to be loyal to that company [58]. This means that sports facilities that have a strong social impact can establish stronger relationships with their customers and retain them over time.
Consumers who consider a facility to have a positive social impact may be more likely to share their experiences with others and promote the facility on social media or other platforms [82]. This can help increase the facility’s visibility and attract more customers, which will further enhance its financial success.
Regarding the comparison according to the socio-demographic variables, the results show that in the case of being a user or not, users perceive a higher social impact of the sports centre than non-users. In general, people who practice physical activity and sports can better perceive the social impacts of a sports facility, as they have seen the benefits that sports create in people’s daily lives. In the case of the respondents’ residence, residents of the district perceive all impacts significantly higher than non-residents, with the exception of sporting habits. This is why location is a crucial factor for the success of this type of business, exerting a focus on attraction [83], which must be studied in advance before the creation of the infrastructure. In the case of gender differences, it was observed that there are no significant differences; however, in other studies on social impact, significant differences have been observed in terms of this variable, with men obtaining higher averages than women [76,84]. For example, the work of McKeon et al. [85] suggested that interventions in sports programmes should take into account the specific needs and constraints of women living in low socio-economic areas, such as lack of childcare and transportation, in order to increase participation. Finally, no significant differences were found in levels of occupation, educational attainment and age, as in other research on the social impact of sport [86].

5. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Lines of Research

In conclusion, the social impacts of sports facilities are complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, sports facilities can provide a sense of community belonging and social cohesion, especially for disadvantaged groups who do not have access to other forms of socialisation. Sports facilities can also be a source of economic development, attracting tourists and creating jobs in the area. On the other hand, sports facilities can contribute to displacement, especially if they are built in low-income neighbourhoods or if the costs of using the facilities are too high for local residents. In addition, sports facilities can be a source of social inequality if certain groups are excluded or marginalised from using them.
In general, it is important that policy-makers and sports managers take into account the social implications of sports facilities when deciding where and how to build them, as well as their management. This includes ensuring that sports facilities are accessible and affordable for all members of the locality and that they do not contribute to displacement. In addition, it is important to consider the impact of sports facilities on the municipality and to work with local residents to ensure that facilities are used in a way that benefits the community as a whole.
While sports facilities can have a positive social impact, it is important to carefully consider the potential drawbacks and take measures to mitigate any negative consequences. In this way, it is important to be able to ensure that sports facilities are a source of social good rather than social harm. Encouraging loyalty and commitment to sporting activities leads to an improvement in the physical condition of the population and should be treated in accordance with their emotions and needs. Generating initiatives, projects, and services that obtain sufficient support and funding will allow us to create spaces that are heterogenous, in tune with the community in which they are established, accessible and that generate a sporting culture, thus, reducing the worrying rates of sporting desertion that currently afflict society. The analysis concluded that the use of a small sample size in similar scientific research may lead to limited statistical power and possible biases in the results.
It should be noted that this study has some limitations. Firstly, the sample obtained was relatively small and focused on the analysis of a specific sports facility in a Spanish city, so the results may not be generalisable to other places. Other factors that may influence customer loyalty, such as the quality of the facilities or the friendliness of the staff, have also not been controlled for.
Finally, the method used for data collection does not incorporate measures of negative impacts. In this sense, future studies could include some indicators that could capture residents’ perceptions of the possible negative effects of the implementation of sports facilities in neighbourhoods or municipalities.
In terms of future research, this work could be repeated in a different geographical region or with a larger sample of sports centres in different municipalities to see if the results generalise to other locations. Another option would be to use more objective measures of customer loyalty, such as repeat purchases or customer satisfaction ratings, to reduce the possibility of bias. Future work will also seek to increase the sample size in order to be able to compare more accurately when another community is analysed.
In addition, future research could examine the impact of other factors on customer loyalty at sports facilities. For example, how does facility quality or staff friendliness influence customer loyalty, and do these factors interact in any way with social responsibility? By studying these questions, researchers could identify the main factors influencing customer loyalty in sports facilities and provide valuable information to facility managers and owners.
Overall, there is still much to be analysed about the relationship between social impact and customer loyalty in sports facilities. Further research in this field can not only contribute to a better understanding of this relationship, but can also help managers and owners of sports facilities to improve their business performance and better serve their communities.

Author Contributions

Introduction, F.G.-P.; software, D.P.-C.; method, F.G.-P., D.D.-B. and A.M.G.-T.; procedure, L.T. and D.P.-C.; results, L.T., D.D.-B. and A.M.G.-T.; discussion, F.G.-P. and D.P.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bastos, A.A.; Boto, R.G.; González, O.M.; del Valle, A.S. Obesidad, nutrición y Actividad Física. Rev. Int. Med. Cienc. Act. Física Deporte 2005, 5, 5. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ríos-Azuara, D. Epidemiología de La Actividad Física En La Unión Europea: Niveles de Actividad, Lesiones Deportivas y Motivaciones. Rev. Esp. Educ. Física Deportes 2013, 403, 91–92. [Google Scholar]
  3. Guthold, R.; Ono, T.; Strong, K.L.; Chatterji, S.; Morabia, A. Worldwide Variability in Physical Inactivity: A 51-Country Survey. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 486–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cenarruzabeitia, J.J.; Hernández, J.A.; Martínez-González, M.Á. Beneficios de la actividad física y riesgos del sedentarismo. Med. Clínica 2003, 121, 665–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Márquez-Rosa, S. Actividad Física y Salud; Ediciones Díaz de Santos: Madrid, Spain, 2013; ISBN 978-84-9969-516-7. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pinedo González, R.; Arroyo González, M.J.; Caballero San José, C. Afectividad positiva y negativa en el futuro docente: Relaciones con su rendimiento académico, salud mental y satisfacción con la vida. Context. Educ. Rev. Educ. 2017, 20, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Reverter Masià, J.; Barbany Cairó, J.R. Del gimnasio al ocio-salud Centros de Fitness, Fitness Center, Fitness & Wellness, Spa, Balnearios, Centros de Talasoterapia, Curhotel. Apunts. Educ. Física Deportes 2007, 90, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
  8. Martínez Cevallos, D.; Alguacil, M.; Calabuig Moreno, F. Influence of Brand Image of a Sports Event on the Recommendation of Its Participants. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tschumi, B. Concepto, Contexto, Contenido. Arquine 2005, 34, 78–89. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hover, P.; Dijk, B.; Breedveld, K.; Eekeren, F. Creating Social Impact with Sport Events; Mulier Institute & Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  11. García-Pascual, F.; Parra-Camacho, D.; González-García, R.J. Validación de una escala para el análisis de las percepciones de los residentes sobre el impacto social de un centro deportivo. Mov. Rev. Esc. Educ. Física 2019, 25, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nikolajsen, H.; Richardson, E.V.; Sandal, L.F.; Juul-Kristensen, B.; Troelsen, J. Fitness for All: How Do Non-Disabled People Respond to Inclusive Fitness Centres? BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 13, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vanclay, F. Conceptualising Social Impacts. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2002, 22, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Prins, R.G.; van Empelen, P.; te Velde, S.J.; Timperio, A.; van Lenthe, F.J.; Tak, N.I.; Crawford, D.; Brug, J.; Oenema, A. Availability of Sports Facilities as Moderator of the Intention-Sports Participation Relationship among Adolescents. Health Educ. Res. 2010, 25, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Powell, L.M.; Slater, S.; Chaloupka, F.J.; Harper, D. Availability of Physical Activity–Related Facilities and Neighborhood Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics: A National Study. Am. J. Public Health 2006, 96, 1676–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Limstrand, T.; Rehrer, N.J. Young People’s Use of Sports Facilities: A Norwegian Study on Physical Activity. Scand. J. Public Health 2008, 36, 452–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, S.A.; Ju, Y.J.; Lee, J.E.; Hyun, I.S.; Nam, J.Y.; Han, K.-T.; Park, E.-C. The Relationship between Sports Facility Accessibility and Physical Activity among Korean Adults. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gutiérrez-Sanmartín, M. Desarrollo de valores en la educación física y el deporte. Apunts. Educ. Física Deportes 1998, 1, 100–108. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rubio-Rodríguez, G.A. La influencia del deporte como generador de valores personales y sociales. Rev. Impetus 2015, 9, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Molina, F. Deporte, Interculturalidad y Calidad de vida: Nuevos modelos de integración social. Rev. Andal. Cienc. Soc. 2010, 9, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Checa Olmos, J.C.; Arjona Garrido, Á.; Pardo, R.; García-Arjona, N. Deporte e integración. Variables que intervienen en el contacto cultural de los jóvenes inmigrados en España. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2012, 21, 233–242. [Google Scholar]
  22. Spaaij, R.; Westerbeek, H. Sport Business and Social Capital: A Contradiction in Terms? Sport Soc. 2010, 13, 1356–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Prins, R.G.; Mohnen, S.M.; van Lenthe, F.J.; Brug, J.; Oenema, A. Are Neighbourhood Social Capital and Availability of Sports Facilities Related to Sports Participation among Dutch Adolescents? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Crompton, J.L. Economic Impact Analysis of Sports Facilities and Events: Eleven Sources of Misapplication. J. Sport Manag. 1995, 9, 14–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. van den Berg, L.; Braun, E. Sports and City Marketing in European Cities; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chapin, T.S. Sports Facilities as Urban Redevelopment Catalysts. Am. Plan. Assoc. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2004, 70, 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lim, S. The Impact of Attracting a Mega-Sport Facility on the Development of a Small Town: A Case Study on Taekwondowon in Muju, South Korea. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Rioja, R. Impacto de las grandes construcciones deportivas en las ciudades. Wterfront 2004, 6, 386–551. [Google Scholar]
  29. Chapin, T. Identifying the Real Costs and Benefits of Sports Facilities; Florida State University: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  30. Johnson, A.T.; Sack, A. Assessing the Value of Sports Facilities: The Importance of Noneconomic Factors. Econ. Dev. Q. 1996, 10, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ashworth, G. The Instruments of Place Branding: How Is It Done? Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2009, 16, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Putman, R. Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences. Can. J. Policy Res. 2001, 2, 41–51. [Google Scholar]
  33. Baum, F.E.; Ziersch, A.M. Social Capital. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2003, 57, 320–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Crossley, N. (Net)Working out: Social Capital in a Private Health Club. Br. J. Sociol. 2008, 59, 475–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Feng, X.; Humphreys, B. Assessing the Economic Impact of Sports Facilities on Residential Property Values: A Spatial Hedonic Approach. J. Sports Econ. 2018, 19, 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Harger, K.; Humphreys, B.R.; Ross, A. Do New Sports Facilities Attract New Businesses? J. Sports Econ. 2016, 17, 483–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, H.; Humphreys, B.R. New Sports Facilities and Residential Housing Markets. J. Reg. Sci. 2014, 54, 629–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Baade, R.A.; Dye, R.F. The Impact of Stadium and Professional Sports on Metropolitan Area Development. Growth Chang. 1990, 21, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oliver, R.L. Whence Consumer Loyalty? J. Mark. 1999, 63, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gremler, D.; Brown, S. Service Loyalty: Its Nature, Importance, and Implications. Adv. Serv. Qual. Glob. Perspect. 1996, 5, 171–181. [Google Scholar]
  41. Silla-Merchán, A.; Calabuig-Moreno, F.; Añó-Sanz, V. Emotions, satisfaction and future intentions of guided sport activities users’ of a sport center. J. Sports Econ. Manag. 2014, 4, 22–38. [Google Scholar]
  42. García-Fernández, J.; Fernández-Gavira, J.F.; Bernal-García, A. La percepción de calidad y fidelidad en clientes de centros de fitness low cost. Suma Psicológica 2014, 21, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. León-Quismondo, J.; García-Unanue, J.; Burillo, P. Best Practices for Fitness Center Business Sustainability: A Qualitative Vision. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Parra-Camacho, D.; González-García, R.J.; Añó Sanz, V.; Ayora Pérez, D. Percepción de los visitantes sobre el impacto social y sus intenciones con respecto a la celebración de un evento deportivo de pequeña escala. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2016, 25, 93–96. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kelley, H.H.; Berscheid, E.; Christensen, A.; Harvey, J.H.; Huston, T.L.; Levinger, G.; McClintock, E.; Peplau, L.A.; Peterson, D.R. Analyzing Close Relationships. Close Relatsh. 1983, 20, 67. [Google Scholar]
  46. Polcsik, B.; Laczkó, T.; Perényi, S. Euro 2020 Held during the COVID-19 Period: Budapest Residents’ Perceptions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xu, Z.; Wu, C.; Li, X. Residents’ Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions towards Mega-Sports Events: A Case Study of Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Almagro, B.J.; Navarro Membrilla, I.; Paramio Pérez, G.; Sáenz López Buñuel, P. Consecuencias de la motivación en las clases de educación física. Rev. Digit. Educ. Física 2015, 34, 26–41. [Google Scholar]
  49. Moreno, J.A.; Moreno, R.; Cervelló, E. El autoconcepto físico como predictor de la intención de ser físicamente activo. Psicol. Salud 2007, 17, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rodríguez Cañamero, S.; García-Unanue, J.; Felipe, J.L.; Sánchez-Sánchez, J.; Gallardo, L. Why Do Clients Enrol and Continue at Sports Centres? Sport Bus. Manag. Int. J. 2019, 9, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. MacIntosh, E.; Law, B. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Exploring the Decision to Join, Maintain, or Cancel a Fitness Membership. Manag. Sport Leis. 2015, 20, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Meir, D.; Fletcher, T. The Transformative Potential of Using Participatory Community Sport Initiatives to Promote Social Cohesion in Divided Community Contexts. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2019, 54, 218–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Breedvelt, J.J.F.; Tiemeier, H.; Sharples, E.; Galea, S.; Niedzwiedz, C.; Elliott, I.; Bockting, C.L. The Effects of Neighbourhood Social Cohesion on Preventing Depression and Anxiety among Adolescents and Young Adults: Rapid Review. BJPsych Open 2022, 8, e97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Moustakas, L. Sport for Social Cohesion: Transferring from the Pitch to the Community? Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jiang, X.; Mastromartino, B.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.J. Influence of Consumer Interaction and Community Relationships on Value Co-Creation Willingness: A Mediation Model of Chinese Sports Brands. Sustainability 2023, 15, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Martínez-Cañas, R.; Ruiz-Palomino, P.; Linuesa-Langreo, J.; Blázquez-Resino, J.J. Consumer Participation in Co-Creation: An Enlightening Model of Causes and Effects Based on Ethical Values and Transcendent Motives. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Braubach, M.; Egorov, A.; Mudu, P.; Wolf, T.; Ward Thompson, C.; Martuzzi, M. Effects of Urban Green Space on Environmental Health, Equity and Resilience. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice; Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 187–205. ISBN 978-3-319-56091-5. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kang, M.; Lee, Y. The Gap in Community Sports: Utilization of Sports Facilities in South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 4495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Edwards, P.; Tsouros, A.D.; World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Promoting Physical Activity and Active Living in Urban Environments: The Role of Local Governments; WHO Regional Office Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006; ISBN 978-92-890-2181-4. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jeon, Y.; Kim, D.; Han, S.; Huang, Y.; Kim, J. How Does Service Environment Enhance Consumer Loyalty in the Sport Fitness Industry? The Role of Servicescape, Cosumption Motivation, Emotional and Flow Experiences. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abdolmaleki, H.; Mirzazadeh, Z.; Alidoust Ghahfarokhhi, E. The Role Played by Socio-Cultural Factors in Sports Consumer Behavior. Ann. Appl. Sport Sci. 2016, 4, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Eime, R.M.; Charity, M.J.; Harvey, J.T.; Payne, W.R. Participation in Sport and Physical Activity: Associations with Socio-Economic Status and Geographical Remoteness. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Tandon, P.S.; Kroshus, E.; Olsen, K.; Garrett, K.; Qu, P.; McCleery, J. Socioeconomic Inequities in Youth Participation in Physical Activity and Sports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 6946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Eime, R.M.; Harvey, J.; Charity, M.J.; Casey, M.; Westerbeek, H.; Payne, W.R. The Relationship of Sport Participation to Provision of Sports Facilities and Socioeconomic Status: A Geographical Analysis. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2017, 41, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Alguacil, M.; García-Fernández, J.; Calabuig, F.; Gálvez-Ruiz, P. How Can the Management of Fitness Centres Be Improved through Corporate Image and Brand Image? Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 35, 3378–3396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Baena-Arroyo, M.J.; García-Fernández, J.; Gálvez-Ruiz, P.; Grimaldi-Puyana, M. Analyzing Consumer Loyalty through Service Experience and Service Convenience: Differences between Instructor Fitness Classes and Virtual Fitness Classes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Wang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wang, F.-J. How Leisure Involvement Affects Repurchase Intention in Fitness Clubs? The Mediating Role of Commercial Friendship. Front. Sports Act. Living 2022, 4, 777185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  70. Karusisi, N.; Thomas, F.; Méline, J.; Chaix, B. Spatial Accessibility to Specific Sport Facilities and Corresponding Sport Practice: The RECORD Study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Chang, C.; Barrett, J. The Relationship between Access to Fitness Centers and Rates of Obesity and Chronic Disease. J. Phys. Act. Health 2017, 14, 277–283. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, Y.; Wang, X. The Social Impact of a Sports Facility on Residents in a Suburban Neighborhood in China. Int. J. Sport Manag. Mark. 2020, 18, 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith, A.; Brown, J.; Taylor, S. The Social Impact of Sports Facilities on Residential Neighborhoods: A Case Study in the United Kingdom. J. Sport Manag. 2019, 33, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
  74. Fernández, M.T. El impacto turístico de los eventos deportivos: Un estudio de caso. Cuad. Tur. 2014, 33, 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  75. Martí Selva, M.L.; Puertas Medina, R. Impacto económico de la celebración de un evento deportivo: Campeonato del Mundo de MotoGP en Valencia. Estud. Econ. Apl. 2012, 30, 683–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Añó, V.; Calabuig, F.; Parra, D. Impacto social de un gran evento deportivo: El Gran Premio de Europa de Fórmula 1. (Social impact of a major athletic event: The Formula 1 Grand Prix of Europe). Cult. Cienc. Deporte 2012, 7, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Inoue, Y.; Havard, C.T. Determinants and Consequences of the Perceived Social Impact of a Sport Event. J. Sport Manag. 2014, 28, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rodríguez, M.; Hernández, J. Barriers to Access to Fitness Centres for Low Socio-Economic Communities. J. Public Health Policy 2016, 7, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kim, Y.; Lee, J. The Economic Impact of Sport Facilities on Low-Income and Marginalized Communities. J. Sport Manag. 2016, 30, 75–89. [Google Scholar]
  80. Baena Arroyo, M.J.; García Fernández, J.; Bernal García, A.; Lara Bocanegra, A.; Gálvez Ruiz, P. El valor percibido y la satisfacción del cliente en actividades dirigidas virtuales y con técnico en centros de fitness. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2016, 25, 219–227. [Google Scholar]
  81. Behnam, M.; Pyun, D.Y.; Doyle, J.P.; Delshab, V. The Impact of Consumer Knowledge on Profitable Consumer Loyalty through Perceived Service Quality and Psychological Involvement in Non-Profit Sport Clubs. Int. J. Sports Mark. Spons 2020, 22, 407–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gürhan-Canli, Z.; Maheswaran, D. Cultural Variations in Country of Origin Effects. J. Mark. Res. 2000, 37, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Del Saz-Salazar, S.; Garcia-Menendez, L. The Nonmarket Benefits of Redeveloping Dockland Areas for Recreational Purposes: The Case of Castellón, Spain. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space 2003, 35, 2115–2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Vegara Ferri, J.M.V.; Angosto, S.A.; Parra-Camacho, D.P. Efecto de la satisfacción de los residentes entre los impactos percibidos y las intenciones futuras respecto a la celebración de un evento de pequeña escala. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Ejerc. Deporte 2020, 15, 81–91. [Google Scholar]
  85. McKeon, G.; Mastrogiovanni, C.; Teychenne, M.; Rosenbaum, S. Barriers and Facilitators to Participating in an Exercise Referral Scheme among Women Living in a Low Socioeconomic Area in Australia: A Qualitative Investigation Using the COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 12312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. González García, R.J.; Parra Camacho, D.; Calabuig Moreno, F.; Añó Sanz, V. Percepción de los residentes sobre el impacto del Mundobasket 2014 en Gran Canaria y apoyo a la celebración de eventos deportivos. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Ejerc. Deporte 2016, 11, 279–288. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Reliability of the dimensions analysed.
Table 1. Reliability of the dimensions analysed.
VariableItemsαCI95% α
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity30.810.76–0.85
Health impact40.770.71–0.81
Impact on physical activity levels and habits50.870.83–0.89
Socio-cultural impact50.910.88–0.92
Socio-economic impact60.930.91–0.94
Image and promotion impact30.910.88–0.92
Future intentions40.850.81–0.88
Note. α = Alpha de Cronbach; CI95% = Alpha Cronbach Interval.
Table
Table 2. Perception of social impact on the sports centre.
Table 2. Perception of social impact on the sports centre.
VariableMSDSK
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity4.230.79−0.70−0.14
Health impact4.430.69−0.71−0.40
Impact on physical activity levels and habits4.260.65−0.28−1.29
Socio-cultural impact3.650.89−0.19−0.58
Socio-economic impact3.441.00−0.09−0.76
Image and promotion impact4.210.87−1.422.61
Future intentions4.400.68−1.010.40
Note. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), skewness value (S) and kurtosis value (K).
Table
Table 3. Comparison of perceptions of impacts by gender, age, residence, occupation and user status.
Table 3. Comparison of perceptions of impacts by gender, age, residence, occupation and user status.
SexMaleFemale
FactorMSDMSDtp ValueCohen’s d
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity4.230.754.250.64−0.230.82−0.03
Health impact4.420.584.450.55−0.370.71−0.05
Impact on physical activity levels and habits4.230.664.290.64−0.680.50−0.09
Socio-cultural impact3.510.913.800.84−2.40.02 *−0.33
Socio-economic impact3.381.043.490.95−0.790.43−0.11
Image and promotion impact4.160.914.260.83−0.790.43−0.11
ResidenceDistrict ResidentNon-Resident in District
FactorMSDMSDtp ValueCohen’s d
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity4.150.714.410.63−2.50.01 *−0.39
Health impact4.370.564.550.56−2.10.04 *−0.32
Impact on physical activity levels and habits4.220.654.330.65−1.20.23−0.17
Socio-cultural impact3.500.863.930.88−3.40.01 *−0.50
Socio-economic impact3.311.003.680.95−2.50.01 *−0.38
Image and promotion impact4.100.934.410.73−2.50.01 *−0.37
User StatusUserNon-User
FactorMSDMSDtp ValueCohen’s d
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity4.360.653.920.734.20.01 *0.64
Health impact4.510.534.210.613.40.01 *0.53
Impact on physical activity levels and habits4.330.634.040.672.90.01 *0.45
Socio-cultural impact3.760.863.340.913.10.01 *0.48
Socio-economic impact3.521.043.190.852.10.03 *0.35
Image and promotion impact4.340.703.821.163.10.01 *0.56
Age18–25 Age26–40 Age41–59 Age60 or +
FactorMSDMSDMSDMSDFp Valueη2
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity4.160.764.060.854.340.544.380.602.20.090.03
Health impact4.430.654.300.524.550.494.350.582.20.100.03
Impact on physical activity levels and habits4.310.694.180.604.270.654.240.650.330.800.01
Socio-cultural impact3.770.813.321.043.700.813.720.912.50.060.04
Socio-economic impact3.670.943.290.943.341.033.401.061.50.180.02
Image and promotion impact4.200.843.951.254.300.694.320.681.60.170.02
OccupationEmployedUnemployedStudentRetired
FactorMSDMSDMSDMSDFp Valueη2
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity4.220.704.310.564.140.784.400.601.00.370.02
Health impact4.420.554.580.504.430.664.400.520.400.750.01
Impact on physical activity levels and habits4.200.644.580.544.220.724.320.591.70.170.02
Socio-cultural impact3.530.953.860.863.680.763.830.851.40.230.02
Socio-economic impact3.270.983.910.853.581.003.491.052.50.560.04
Image and promotion impact4.130.954.580.704.120.864.370.671.90.130.04
Note. * indicates differences at a statistically significant level p < 0.05. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; η2 = eta squared.
Table
Table 4. Influence of impacts on future intentions.
Table 4. Influence of impacts on future intentions.
FactorBTp Value
Impact on social cohesion, equality and equity0.101.200.23
Health impact0.202.590.01 *
Impact on physical activity levels and habits0.020.240.81
Socio-cultural impact0.202.760.01 *
Socio-economic impact−0.05−0.590.55
Image and promotion impact0.354.19<0.01 *
Note. R = 0.69; R2 = 0.49; R2 adj = 0.47; D-W = 1869; F(6) = 31,654; * p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Testa, L.; Parra-Camacho, D.; Gómez-Tafalla, A.M.; Garcia-Pascual, F.; Duclos-Bastías, D. Local Impact of a Sports Centre: Effects on Future Intentions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065550

AMA Style

Testa L, Parra-Camacho D, Gómez-Tafalla AM, Garcia-Pascual F, Duclos-Bastías D. Local Impact of a Sports Centre: Effects on Future Intentions. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065550

Chicago/Turabian Style

Testa, Lucciano, David Parra-Camacho, Ana María Gómez-Tafalla, Fernando Garcia-Pascual, and Daniel Duclos-Bastías. 2023. "Local Impact of a Sports Centre: Effects on Future Intentions" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065550

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop