The Effect of Leisure Involvement on Place Attachment: Flow Experience as Mediating Role

Abstract

Leisure is an important way for residents to achieve well-being. As urbanization continues to accelerate and residents’ spiritual and cultural needs gradually increase, urban park leisure is becoming increasingly prominent in daily recreation, and recreational activities that meet residents’ short-term and frequent needs for leisure are becoming preferred. In this article, based on structural equation models, four representative urban parks in Beijing were selected as study areas to explore the relationships among three variables: leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment. The results showed that (1) leisure involvement had a significant positive effect on flow experience, (2) flow experience had a significant positive effect on place attachment, and (3) leisure involvement had both a significant direct effect on place attachment and an indirect effect mediated by flow experience. In addition, according to the empirical analysis of the influence of leisure behavior characteristics on leisure benefits, it was found that 1–3 h of leisure time in the park had the best leisure benefits. Therefore, a higher level of leisure involvement and a stronger flow experience can help to enhance residents’ place attachment; foster self-expression, identity, and self-actualization; and boost the benefits of leisure, which will eventually improve personal well-being and quality of life, construct and strengthen a sense of urban community, and fulfill people’s aspirations for a better life.

1. Introduction

The Annual Report of China Leisure Development 2021 released by China’s Tourism Academy points out that with the combined effect of external policies and internal market forces, national demand for leisure keeps rising, and leisure has become an important way for people to achieve self-actualization and pursue a better life. Leisure is related to quality of life and individual growth [1]. As it is an important way of life that enhances people’s happiness, the fundamental purpose of leisure is to improve the quality of life and create better living conditions for all people [2,3]. In the post-pandemic era, people commonly have an increased awareness of epidemic prevention and control and have become more health-conscious [4]. The attention given to leisure provides unprecedented opportunities and challenges for daily recreation, leading people to rethink the connotations of leisure and its value to individual well-being [5]. Experiences and feelings are the basis of architecture and urban design. Enhancing placemaking and leisure experiences, investigating individual leisure behavior and the benefits of leisure for contemporary urban residents, and studying the inherent mechanisms of places for leisure are important topics in urban research in the new era [6].

In urban public spaces, people meet with each other, generate social interactions, and construct social relationships [7,8]. As an indispensable part of urban public space, urban parks can be understood as a form of landscape and green space for the public service [9], and they play a positive role in preventing social polarization, reducing social isolation, and enhancing leisure well-being for the public. Through an exploration of the connotations of residents’ leisure, the identification of leisure with urban parks is shaped into strong links between subjects and parks, and among subjects, thus encouraging residents’ participation in leisure and realizing the construction of social linkages in the urban leisure community [10].

The involvement in park leisure that residents feel originates from the heart, and all their attention is focused on the leisure activity they are engaged in [11]. This kind of flow experience brings something spiritual that might be experienced by reading a book or watching a good movie, but park leisure consists of experiencing something in person, providing a quicker and deeper experience. The flow experience is a kind of feeling that residents get by devoting themselves to the whole leisure process, and people who have the flow experience will instinctively care about the place, then feel attached and develop a sense of belonging to the place, and these perceptions undoubtedly form part of their identity with the city [12].

Specific places and activities in urban parks carry feelings and memories unique to the lives of different subjects [13]. Over time, these feelings and memories are given unique meanings, which brings about distinctive spiritual experiences and a strong sense of belonging that can easily motivate people to attach themselves to specific places in the park [14]. This is conducive not only to guiding and integrating residents into the leisure community of parks and making up for the deficiencies of basic management, but also improving the ability of parks to deal with public emergencies, increasing the resilience of urban parks, and making residents truly engage in park management [15].

Given that the subject of a city park is people, and based on the common pursuits of human beings, the mission and motivation for the construction of city parks lies in putting people first, emphasizing the principal status of the people, continuously meeting the growing need for a better life, increasing people’s happiness, enhancing their sense of identity and sense of belonging to the city, and improving the benefits of leisure for the residents [16]. The study of the mechanism of how place attachment is formed is an important and complex proposition. This study intends to introduce the flow experience as a mediating variable to construct and validate a model of leisure involvement—place attachment for residents using urban parks, in order to develop the existing theory of place attachment, and to propose conclusions and suggestions according to the research results to promote the harmonious development of urban human—place bonds.

2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

2.1. Definition of the Concepts

2.1.1. Leisure Involvement

Involvement originates from the notion of ego-involvement in social judgment theory, which was used to explain the perception of an individual provoked by an external stimulus or situation, and the degree of its relevance to the individual [17]. The concept of involvement was first introduced to the field of leisure in the 1980s by Selin and Howard [18], who combined ego-involvement with leisure, arguing that recreational involvement existed between an individual and a recreational activity, characterized by some level of enjoyment and self-expression being achieved through the activity. Since then, the concept of involvement has been widely used in leisure research and has been applied by scholars to explain personal choices of leisure activities.

Bryan defined leisure involvement as the interest and behavior triggered by a preference for leisure activities and leisure places. Havitz and Dimanche [19] extended the definition of involvement to recreation and tourism settings, considering it to be a psychological state of motivation or interest linking an individual with recreational activities, tourist destinations, or related equipment, characterized by perception of elements such as importance, pleasure value, sign value, risk probability, etc. Wang Hao defined leisure involvement as the correlation that tourists perceive between leisure products and individual intrinsic needs, interests, and values. On the basis of previous research, this study defines leisure involvement as a psychological state in which an individual is engaged in a certain leisure activity, a state that encompasses the degree of relevance to specific leisure activities that the individual perceives, and the positive psychological state of satisfaction with self-expression and pleasure in leisure.

With the development of research, people began to agree on the multiple characteristics of leisure involvement. Laurent and Kapferer [20] argued that leisure involvement consisted of five dimensions: interest, pleasure, perceived possibility, risk consequences, and self-expression. McIntyre and Pigram [21] believed that leisure involvement included five components: attraction, self-expression, life form centrality, prior experience, and familiarity. Havitz and Dimanche [22] pointed out that leisure involvement contained three facets: attraction, centrality, and self-expression, where attraction referred to the importance and pleasure of leisure activities, centrality meant the value of an activity relative to other domains of life, and self-expression represented the expression of one’s identity through engagement in an activity. As the research subjects are residents of urban parks, their perception of risk is relatively low. Meanwhile, according to the classification of leisure involvement adopted by most scholars, this study adopted the leisure involvement scale proposed by Havitz and Dimanche and divided leisure involvement into three dimensions: pleasure, importance, and symbolic value.

2.1.2. Flow Experience

Based on interviews with people involved in activities that were very purposeful, Csikszentmihalyi [23] found that they kept engaging in these activities without getting bored because they had an optimal experience, known as “flow”, which occurred naturally and continuously during their participation. Csikszentmihalyi thus introduced the psychological concept of “flow experience”. According to Csikszentmihalyi [24], in the flow state, the individual is so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter at the time, except responding to clear goals and explicit feedback, and developing a sense of control over the activity being performed through their skills. The flow state has been described as the “optimal experience” in which one reaches a level of high gratification from the enjoyable experience.

According to Hoffman and Novak, “flow” can be experienced when a person is fully immersed in an activity; for example, Yi Li [25] found that viewers could easily achieve a flow state when participating in a live stream. MacDonald and Carlton argued that residents who were involved in attractive and interesting activities and felt the pleasure of recreation would concentrate more on the leisure itself and temporarily lose their perception of time and the environment. Flow experience is more likely to occur in the state in which the perceptions and behavior of participants are highly integrated.

How does one achieve flow? Csikszentmihalyi proposed three basic conditions for the generation of a flow state: clear goals, immediate feedback, and a balance between skills and challenges. In addition, the occurrence of flow experience depends on different personality traits, and there are individual differences. In 1975, Csikszentmihalyi systematically constructed a theoretical model of flow experience. He argued that only when skills and challenges were in balance could a person be fully engaged in an activity and achieve flow. However, some scholars pointed out that the model of flow experience varied in different cultural contexts. For example, Chinese people have stronger intrinsic motivation when their own skills exceed the challenges but they cannot achieve higher levels of intrinsic motivation when the perceived challenges and skills reach high levels.

Csikszentmihalyi [26] described flow experience in terms of nine dimensions: challenge–skill balance, clear goals, unambiguous and immediate feedback, concentration on the task at hand, loss of self-consciousness, action–awareness merging, a sense of control, transformation of time, and autotelic experience. Although the existence and dimensions of flow experience have been validated in many leisure and sports programs, it must be recognized that the causes that produce flow and the influencing mechanisms may vary in different activities, and the dimensions may also differ. Those who adhere to the unidimensional theory believe that the flow is a positive experience of immersion and concentration, often accompanied by the merging of action and awareness, focused attention, and temporary loss of self-awareness. It is a complete experience and should not be subdivided. Baker argued that flow experience included focused attention, interest, and intrinsic motivation, with interest and focused attention being the core dimensions of flow experience. Hu Junjie measured the flow experience using four dimensions, namely, expectation–feeling balance, concentration on the task at hand, action–awareness merging, and transformation of time. Engeser believed that the flow experience consisted of five dimensions: merging of action and awareness, concentration, loss of self-consciousness, a sense of control, and purposeful experience. Yu Mingjin found that the flow experience included challenge–skill balance, action–awareness merging, clear goals, unambiguous and immediate feedback, and a distorted sense of time.

2.1.3. Place Attachment

Place attachment has successively gone through the concepts of geopiety, topophilia, and sense of place. “Geopiety” is a term initially coined by Wright to denote the sense of thoughtful piety aroused by human awareness of geographical space. “Topophilia” was proposed by Tuan [27] in 1974 to indicate a person’s affective ties with his/her physical environment. Relph [28] proposed the term “sense of place” based on the idea of “geopiety”, believing that a sense of place was an emotional expression that fulfilled fundamental human needs. In 1983, Shumaker et al. defined the concept of place dependence as an emotional bond between people and their place, and its emotional function played a central role in this relationship, which was generally accepted by scholars. In 1989, Williams and Roggenbuck [29] formally proposed “place attachment”, which referred to a connection between people and places based on affection (emotions and feelings), cognition (thoughts, knowledge, and beliefs), and practice (actions and behavior). When a place can satisfy people’s fundamental needs and activities, functional dependence is formed and affection for the place arises. The stronger the affection for the place, the deeper the emotional attachment, and thus place identity is formed and place attachment is deepened. Since then, the concept of “place attachment” has been widely recognized and applied in leisure and recreation research.

Daniel R. Williams first proposed a two-dimensional framework of place attachment, arguing that place attachment included individuals’ functional attachment to places, i.e., place dependence and place identity. Leila Scannell [30] argued that place attachment consisted of “person, place, and psychological process”, in which the person dimension referred to the subject who generated the place attachment, the place dimension referred to characteristics of the place, and the psychological process dimension referred to the person’s affective experience of the place. Chen [31] proposed that place attachment could be divided into four dimensions (place identity, affective attachment, social bonding, and place dependence) and explored the relationship between place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. William Hammitt [32] developed a five-dimensional model, adding place familiarity, belongingness, and rootedness, and designing scales to measure the five different levels of attachment. It can be seen that most scholars constructed new dimensions based on the classical two-dimensional structure of place attachment according to their different research directions. Most empirical studies were measured on the basis of the two-dimensional structure, such as Chen Hao and Xiao Ling’s research in an urban park and Georgina Cundill’s [33] research in South Africa, which proved the reliability and universality of the classical two-dimensional structure.

The concept of place attachment proposed by Williams and Roggenbuck has been the most widely used concept so far, so this study has also adopted their definition of place attachment as a type of connection based on emotion, behavior, and cognition in the interaction between an individual and a place. The two-dimensional structure formulated by Williams has been accepted by many scholars. Therefore, this study adopted to this structure and divided place attachment into place dependence and place identity.

2.2. Research Hypotheses and Theoretical Model

2.2.1. Leisure Involvement and Flow Experience

The flow experience is an important indicator of positive feelings about leisure, which emphasizes full involvement to obtain a psychological feeling of transcendence. This feeling is self-motivated and occurs when one is deeply engaged in an activity and experiences personal skills that are well suited to the challenges. According to Tinsley, if an individual cannot experience flow from participating in an activity, it is not a true leisure activity. Celsi and Olson believed that the feelings of individuals during an activity were an important factor in determining their experience. In a high-involvement state, individuals can enjoy the activity and become fully engaged, creating a sense of control over the activity, which, in turn, stimulates a flow experience. Csikzentmihalyi and Hunter [34] found that leisure involvement not only positively predicted the occurrence of flow experience but also had a positive effect on it. The more involved an individual was in a leisure activity and the more he or she learnt to improve his/her personal skills, the more obvious the flow experience was while engaging in the activity. In the investigation of climbers’ leisure involvement, Chang Liu found that leisure involvement had a significant effect on climbers’ flow experience; moreover, a higher level of leisure involvement was associated with a stronger flow experience.

As can be seen from these definitions, leisure involvement is an antecedent variable of flow experience. With higher levels of leisure involvement, participants in leisure activities are able to fully express themselves and gain pleasure in self-actualization, and the feelings experienced during leisure involvement affects continuity and the willingness to participate in leisure activities. Xie Zonglin argued that leisure involvement not only increased feelings of participants, but also positively influenced the occurrence and improvement of the flow experience. Weng Lisheng et al. found that the leisure involvement of the elderly in square dancing could significantly influence their flow experience and also affect their well-being through the flow experience during the process of dancing. In research into the Xijiang Thousand Households Miao Village in Guizhou province, Chen Xi et al. found that visitors had positive emotional experiences such as pleasure and enjoyment while engaging in tourism activities in ancient villages, and such experiences would make them concentrate on the activities and easily become satisfied with the results of recreation. Situational involvement had a significant positive effect on flow experience, confirming that the participants need to be involved in the activity in order to experience flow. Thus, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Leisure involvement has a significant positive effect on flow experience.

2.2.2. Leisure Involvement and Place Attachment

The affection for a place during leisure involvement is not formed by a single feeling. It contains profound meanings arising from the external environment and the interaction with the place. Place attachment emphasizes the emotional connection between people and places, and deep leisure involvement will increase the experiences and skills of residents, making them more likely to feel attached than other residents. Therefore, people’s place attachment is often positively related to the level of involvement in the activity. Based on the existing literature, it is generally agreed that as residents become more involved, they are more likely to develop attachment to places compared with other residents.

In a study of rail-trail users, Moore and Graefe [35] found that the level of involvement of users positively influenced the formation of place attachment. Gross et al. found that involvement as an intrinsic factor could have a direct influence on place attachment. Kyle took climbers as the research subject to study the relationship between the involvement of tourists and place attachment, and proposed that tourists’ involvement was an antecedent variable of place attachment. Hung and Lee constructed a model of the relationships among leisure involvement, place attachment, and satisfaction with the quality of interpretation, and found that involvement in recreational activities had an important and direct effect on place attachment. Taking the Red Plum Park of Changzhou as an example, Lu Min et al. analyzed the relationship between recreation involvement and place attachment, and pointed out that the dimensions of recreation involvement, namely attraction, self-expression, and centrality, had significant positive effects on the dimensions of place attachment, namely place dependence and place identity. Therefore, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Leisure involvement has a significant positive effect on place attachment.

2.2.3. The Mediating Role of Flow Experience

In the era of mass leisure, it is particularly important to create a good leisure environment and provide the best experience for residents. The flow experience not only requires one to be fully immersed in the activity, but also requires him or her to feel in harmony with the external environment. When a resident perceives that he/she is fully involved in the park and loses control over time, he/she is likely to be in a flow state, and this positive emotion will result in a further sense of attachment to the place. In a study of social customer relationship management platforms, Xia Baoguo found that the flow experience had a significant positive impact on the sense of attachment. Huang Kaiting found that two dimensions of flow experience, namely, concentration and a distorted sense of time, had a significant positive effect on place attachment. Zhang Rongyu studied participants in the 2017 Tianzhong Marathon and found that the better the flow they experienced during the race, the greater their attachment to Tianzhong would be. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Flow experience has a significant positive effect on place attachment.

The literature review suggested that leisure involvement will positively affect place attachment; however, the actual results show that not everyone involved in leisure activities will have the same level of place attachment. This phenomenon implies that leisure involvement will have an impact on place attachment through certain mediating variables. Wiley pointed out that the level of involvement had a decisive influence on the perception of emotions such as excitement and pleasure during tourism activities, and this perception usually influenced the level of place attachment. Lu Xianglin et al. introduced satisfaction as a mediating variable in their study of the relationship between involvement and place attachment, and found that the satisfaction played a mediating role in the behavioral intention path of involvement. This result also modified the conclusion that tourism involvement would have a direct effect on place attachment as proposed by Wang Kun et al. Shen Jieheng studied the leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment of tourists attending the Kenting Spring Scream, and found that the higher the degree of involvement, the stronger the influence on flow experience and attachment, and the deeper the flow experience, the higher the degree of attachment to the place. Thus, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Flow experience plays a mediating role in the effect of leisure involvement on place attachment.

On the basis of the literature review, reasoning, and the hypotheses, this research constructed a conceptual model of the three key variables, taking residents as the main subject of the study and using theories of leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment to explore what residents need and what factors influence their leisure intention, and to further study the relationships among leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment. The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Study Areas

Through thane analysis of major cities in the world, Ma Congling divided urban leisure space into four categories: urban parks, green areas along streets, pedestrian areas, and waterfronts. On the basis of the classification of urban parks by Tao Xiaoli, this study classified urban parks into comprehensive parks, community parks, specific parks, and street parks according to the Urban Green Space Classification Standard (CJJT85-2019). We selected representative parks in Beijing as examples and quantified each variable through a questionnaire.

The typical urban parks in Beijing selected in this study were a comprehensive park (Olympic Forest Park), a community park (Black Bamboo Park), a specific park (Beihai Park), and a street park (Ancient San Li River Park); their locations are shown in Figure 2. With a variety of plants and water features, relatively complete service infrastructures and transportation facilities, and a high level of park management, the four parks attract a large number of visitors, forming recreational places with high quality and clear social influence that can satisfy the various leisure needs of visitors, including entertainment, sports, sightseeing, and learning experiences. Therefore, the four urban parks were selected as study areas.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

In this research, a questionnaire regarding participation in leisure activities in Beijing’s urban parks was designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of leisure activities in the city parks. The questionnaire consisted of the following four parts. The section on demographic information contained a demographic characteristics scale with 11 questions into factors such as gender, age, monthly income, occupation, etc. The second part included the leisure involvement scale. Personal involvement can reflect a person’s commitment to leisure activities, related products, or experiences. This study used the involvement scale developed by Havitz and Dimanche to quantify the level of leisure involvement in three dimensions: attraction, self-expression, and centrality [36], with three questions for each subdimension and nine questions in total. The third part covered the flow experience scale. Flow experience is not about proving a certain aspect of oneself to others, but about experiencing a sense of enjoyment and immersion in one’s life by constantly challenging and surpassing oneself in leisure experiences. According to the research and question designs of Liu Weina [37], Tang Rong, and Chen Yichen, five dimensions were selected: expectation–feeling balance, concentration on the task at hand, transformation of time, action–awareness merging, and loss of self-consciousness. Each subdimension contained three questions, and there were 15 questions in total. Lastly, the survey included the place attachment scale [38]. The two-dimensional structure proposed by Daniel R. Williams has been tested by a large number of empirical studies, both in other countries and in China. Chen Hao demonstrated that the scale was also applicable to the measurement of residents’ attachment to urban parks. Hence, in line with the classical two-dimensional structure, this study divided place attachment into place dependence and place identity, with two questions for each subdimension and four questions in total.

In this questionnaire, except for the first part, all items were rated on a five-point Likert scale as follows: “strongly agree” (5), “agree” (4), “neither agree/nor disagree” (3), “disagree” (2), and “strongly disagree” (1), which quantified leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment in 11 dimensions.

3.3. Data Collection

Considering the number of questions, a pre-survey was conducted through several interviews from 15 July 2021 to 20 July 2021, and some questions were modified on the basis of the pre-survey data and the results of the interviews. The formal survey was carried out from 1 August 2021 to 10 August 2021, with three survey periods per day: morning, midday, and evening, each period lasting 2 h. The participants were randomly selected from a dense place. In total, 800 questionnaires were distributed, and after invalid data had been eliminated, 771 valid samples were collected, with a completion rate of 96.375%.

Before conducting the formal questionnaire research, the investigators first explained the purpose of the survey and the meaning of questions to the participants, and informed them that the answers and information involved in this questionnaire would be kept confidential, which helped to ensure the accuracy and validity of the questionnaire to a certain extent; all respondents agreed to participate in the survey. The survey was also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41901180).

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Sample Description

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the demographic variables.

Variable	Category	Number	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	379	49.2
	Female	392	50.8
Age	≤18	113	14.7
	19–30	247	32
	31–45	247	32
	46–60	121	15.7
	>60	43	5.6
Education	High school and below	185	24
	Associate degree	141	18.3
	Undergraduate	294	38.1
	Postgraduate and above	151	19.6
Occupation	Administrative staff	119	15.4
	Public sector/company employee	257	33.3
	Self-employed	45	5.8
	Student	183	23.7
	Retired	40	5.2
	Worker	59	7.7
	Unemployed	68	8.9
Monthly income	≤3000 yuan	208	27
	3001–7000 yuan	201	26.1
	7001–10,000 yuan	141	18.3
	≥10,000 yuan	221	28.6
Physical condition	Good	551	71.5
	Fair	183	23.7
	Poor	37	4.8

. Among the valid samples, the proportion of women (50.8%) was slightly higher than that of men (49.2%), but the gender distribution was relatively even. In terms of age, the proportion of 19–30-year-olds and 31–45-year-olds was the largest, mainly because during the research process, older or younger residents were less likely to agree to fill in the questionnaire. Regarding education, the largest number of people had a bachelor’s degree, accounting for 38.1%; for occupation, enterprises and public institutions/company employees accounted for 33.3%. In terms of monthly income, the number of people earning more than 10,000 yuan and 3001–7000 yuan was relatively high, accounting for 28.6% and 26.1% respectively. Regarding physical condition, 71.5% of residents thought that they were in good health.

The leisure behavior characteristics of residents include the time spent in the park, the frequency of leisure activities in the park per month, the mode of travel, and where the residents come from. The descriptive statistical analysis (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of leisure behavior characteristics.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Leisure time spent in parks each visit	Less than 1 h	170	22
	1–2 h	325	42.2
	2–3 h	199	25.8
	Over 3 h	77	10
Frequency of leisure activities per month	Fewer than 3 times	334	43.3
	3–15 times	298	38.7
	16–30 times	104	13.5
	Over 30 times	35	4.5
Travel mode	Alone	201	26.2
	With family members	308	39.9
	With friends	217	28.1
	Team or organization	45	5.8
Place of residence	Residents/workers in the neighborhood	326	42.3
	In Beijing	271	35.1
	Foreign visitors	174	22.6

) showed that residents spent mainly 1–2 h in the park, accounting for 42.2%; most residents engaged in leisure activities in the park fewer than three times or 3–15 times per month, accounting for 82.0%; traveling with family members was the main travel mode, accounting for 39.9%; and the respondents were mainly residents/workers in the neighborhood and in Beijing, while foreign visitors made up a relatively small proportion.

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Measurement Models

Reliability refers to the degree of consistency or stability in measurement. Regarding the value of the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient, in order to ensure the credibility of the variables [39], alpha values above 0.7 are generally considered to reflect the good internal consistency of a scale. As can be seen from

Table 3. Results of the reliability and validity analysis.

Exploratory Factor Analysis							Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Variable	Scale	Item	Mean	Standard Deviation	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients	Standardized Factor Loading Values	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Leisure Involvement
Attraction	Attraction 1	Leisure time in the park can reduce stress.	4.31	0.866	0.753	0.856	0.819	0.900	0.532
	Attraction 2	Leisure time in the park brings me a lot of fun.	4.16	0.894	0.803		0.702
	Attraction 3	Leisure activities in the park are important to me.	3.89	0.955	0.734		0.740
Self-expression	Self-expression 1	I’m glad to let others know that I’m relaxing in the park.	3.60	1.116	0.718		0.585
	Self-expression 2	I care about what others think of my participation in leisure activities in the park.	3.20	1.253	0.827		0.803
Centrality	Centrality 1	Leisure activities in the park are very important to my life.	3.79	1.005	0.615		0.748
	Centrality 2	I am willing to spend time/money on leisure in the park.	3.83	1.021	0.765		0.732
	Centrality 3	I am willing to share my leisure experiences in the park with family/friends.	3.95	0.971	0.752		0.678
Flow Experience
Expectations well suited to feelings	Expectations well suited to feelings 1	I can easily gain satisfaction from leisure in the park.	3.91	0.996	0.738	0.933	0.756	0.948	0.601
	Expectations well suited to feelings 2	I can control my pace during leisure in the park.	3.89	0.923	0.812		0.735
	Expectations well suited to feelings 3	I think I can set higher expectations and get a better leisure experience next time.	3.83	0.955	0.622		0.750
Concentration on the task	Concentration on the task 1	I am immersed in the leisure environment of the park.	3.93	0.954	0.651		0.786
	Concentration on the task 2	The park environment makes me very feel concentrated.	3.84	0.981	0.652		0.804
	Concentration on the task 3	I forget the worries of work/life while relaxing in the park.	3.96	0.987	0.736		0.791
Altered sense of time	Altered sense of time 1	Time seems to pass in a different way from usual when I am relaxing in the park.	3.91	1.011	0.723		0.797
	Altered sense of time 2	When relaxing in the park, sometimes, time seems to stand still.	3.76	1.020	0.779		0.780
Merging of action and awareness	Merging of action and awareness 1	When relaxing in the park, my behavior is natural.	4.04	0.880	0.703		0.774
	Merging of action and awareness 2	When relaxing in the park, I don’t have to think about anything.	3.88	1.002	0.768		0.795
Loss of self-consciousness	Loss of self-consciousness 1	While relaxing in the park, I don’t worry about my behavior.	3.89	0.983	0.783		0.769
	Loss of self-consciousness 2	When relaxing in the park, I am not concerned about what others may think of me.	3.81	0.999	0.788		0.762
Place Attachment
Place identity	Place identity 1	I feel that it has become an indispensable part of my life.	3.75	0.998	0.913	0.857	0.793	0.870	0.627
	Place identity 2	Leisure in the park is of special significance to me.	3.70	1.037	0.721		0.830
Place dependence	Place dependence 1	I identify with the environment in the park.	3.99	0.924	0.880		0.773
	Place dependence 2	I look forward to my next leisure activities in the park.	3.95	0.929	0.721		0.770

, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the three dimensions were greater than 0.7, so the data had relatively high internal consistency [40]. According to the factor analysis, self-expression Factor 3, altered sense of time Factor 1, and merging of action and awareness Factor 1 were simultaneously on two subdimensions and did not fit into a clear dimension, so they were deleted.

As shown in Table 3, except for self-expression Factor 1, the standardized factor loading values were all greater than 0.6, the other indicators showed a good fit, and there were no items with standardized factor loadings more than 0.95; thus, all of them were retained. Factor loadings above 0.6 suggested that the observed variables could reflect the measured dimensions. The composite reliability scores of the questionnaire were 0.900, 0.948, and 0.870 for leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment, respectively, which were greater than the acceptable threshold of 0.7, indicating the good internal consistency of the dimensions. The scores of average variance extracted for the questionnaire were 0.532, 0.601, and 0.627 for leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment, respectively, which were greater than 0.5. These results showed that the data in this study had good convergent validity and met the basic requirements, indicating that the dimensions selected for the questionnaire could explain the variance of the variables.

4.3. Evaluating the Fit of the Structural Models

Validity refers to the extent to which the instrument measures what it is designed to measure [41,42]. After we deleted four observed variables, the validity analysis was conducted on the other 24 observed variables. In this study, AMOS was used to test the overall model fit. According to the statistics, $\raisebox{1ex}{${\mathrm{X}}^2$}\!\left/ \!\raisebox{-1ex}{$\mathrm{df}$}\right.$ = 3.506, which is less than 5, and RMSEA = 0.057, which is less than 0.08, indicating that overall, the model met the model acceptance criteria, i.e., the questionnaire had acceptable structural validity.

This research then used AMOS to conduct the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the questionnaire [43]. Convergent validity was assessed by standardized factor loading, composite reliability, and average variance extracted. The results are presented in

Table 4. Fit indices of the models.

Fit Index			Absolute Fit Index			Value-Added Fit Index				Simplify Fit Index
	X2	df	X2/df	RMSEA	GFI	RFI	NFI	CFI	IFI	AIC	CAIC
Ideal number			<5	0.03–0.08	0–1, larger is better; >0.9, good fit	0–1, larger is better; >0.9, good fit	0–1, larger is better; >0.9, good fit	0–1, larger is better; >0.9, good fit	0–1, larger is better; >0.9, good fit	Lower is better	Lower is better
Test results	844.841	241	3.506	0.057	0.913	0.902	0.915	0.937	0.938	962.841	1296.054
Evaluation of model fit			Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good

. As can be seen from the fit indices of the measurement model, they all met the fitting criteria, and thus the goodness of fit of the overall model was shown; in other words, the data met the theoretical assumptions 9.

4.4. Hypothesis Testing

In this study, structural equation modeling was used to analyze the relationships among leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment. According to the estimation results of the model, the standardized path coefficients between the variables are shown in Figure 3. If the CR value is greater than 1.96, it indicates a significance level of 0.05; if the CR value is greater than 2.58, it indicates a significance level of 0.01.

According to

Table 5. Results of path estimation for the models.

Hypothesis	Path	Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	p
H1	Leisure involvement → flow experience	0.939	0.065	14.438	***
H2	Leisure involvement → place attachment	0.439	0.123	3.570	***
H3	Flow experience → place attachment	0.589	0.119	4.954	***

Note: *** indicates that the result is significant at the 0.01 level and beyond.

, the CR values of leisure involvement → flow experience, leisure involvement → place attachment, and flow experience → place attachment were greater than 2.58 (p < 0.01), reaching a significance level of 0.01; i.e., H1, H2, and H3 were supported.

4.5. Testing the Mediating Role of Flow Experience

The total effect of a latent variable is the sum of the direct and indirect effects, which indicates the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The direct effect is the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, while the indirect effect is the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through one or more mediating variables.

Table 6. Effects between the latent variables of the hypothetical model.

Path	Direct Effect	Indirect Effect	Total Effect
Leisure involvement → flow experience	0.914	0.000	0.914
Flow experience → place attachment	0.550	0.000	0.550
Leisure involvement → place attachment	0.399	0.502	0.901

shows the values of the direct effects, indirect effects, and total effects among the latent variables in the structural equation model. The direct effect of leisure involvement on flow experience was 0.914, the direct effect of flow experience on place attachment was 0.550, and the direct effect of leisure involvement on place attachment was 0.399 and the indirect effect was 0.502. When other conditions remained unchanged, a one-unit increase in flow experience directly increased place attachment by 0.550, a one-unit increase in leisure involvement directly improved flow experience by 0.914, and improved place attachment directly by 0.399, and indirectly by 0.502, for a total increase of 0.901 (0.399 + 0.502). Thus, leisure involvement had both a significant direct effect on place attachment and an indirect effect mediated by flow experience.

In conclusion, the results for the four hypotheses in this study are shown in

Table 7. Results of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Conclusion
H1: Leisure involvement has a significant positive effect on flow experience.	Supported
H2: Leisure involvement has a significant positive effect on place attachment.	Supported
H3: Flow experience has a significant positive effect on place attachment.	Supported
H4: Flow experience plays a mediating role in the effect of leisure involvement on place attachment.	Supported

.

4.6. Marginal Contribution

As shown above, through the involvement of residents in park-based recreation and the increased intensity of flow experience, residents have gradually developed an emotional attachment to parks. When the interaction between residents and places of leisure transforms from human–land compatibility to the level of emotional attachment, the physical and mental states experienced by residents would be significantly improved [44]. McIntyre’s research showed that when people gained pleasure and enhanced self-awareness through leisure behavior, they then considered this activity as an important choice for their leisure life. Their motivation and interest would be carried through the process of involvement and eventually create leisure benefits for the leisure subject. Leisure involvement allows participants to improve fitness, gain psychological satisfaction, expand interpersonal relationships, relax their body and mind, and enrich their knowledge. The pursuit of leisure benefits is an important aspect of leisure activities in parks [45]. Personal leisure behavior is a significant part of leisure activities, which is positively correlated with leisure benefits and can reflect the level of leisure benefits to a certain extent. Optimizing the structure of leisure behavior will obviously improve the benefits of leisure [46].

4.6.1. Benefits of Leisure

The benefits of leisure (“leisure benefits”) refer to the subjective feelings that individuals experience through leisure behaviors, which can help them to improve their physical and mental states and satisfy their needs [47]. Mannell [48] constructed a system of leisure benefits, stating that due to external stimuli such as the environment, activities, and time, participants would experience psychological, physical, economic, environmental, and social influences when they engaged in leisure activities, and such impacts would result in leisure benefits after individual evaluation. The higher the evaluation of leisure benefits, the more active the participants will be in the leisure activities. Since many leisure benefits cannot be directly observed, such as improved physical fitness, reduced stress, enhanced pleasure and happiness, etc., leisure benefits are a subjective and personal feeling. Based on this notion, this study argues that the leisure benefits of residents refer to individual’s subjective evaluations about the positive physical and psychological benefits of leisure activities [49]. In terms of measuring the dimensions of leisure benefits, scholars’ preferences differ due to the different research contexts; however, healthy living, stress relief, and self-actualization are the three dimensions most commonly applied in measurement.

Healthy living includes aspects of promoting physical and mental health, changing sedentary lifestyles, and developing a habit of regular exercise [50]. Studies have shown that parks and recreation can provide residents with places to exercise and relax, thus promoting mental health, developing healthy lifestyles, and increasing opportunities for cultural and scientific education. At the same time, they play a significant role in improving overall health.

Stress relief refers to eliminating fatigue from daily life, boosting mood, and enjoying activities in the natural environment. Tan Shaohua studied the function and mechanism of influence of the park environment on health recovery and found that it had positive effects on reducing mental stress, eliminating fatigue, improving mood, and cultivating taste.

Self-actualization refers to aspects such as gaining a sense of accomplishment, finding yourself, and obtaining the approval of others. Parks are not only places for residents to express themselves, but also can be used to enhance social interactions and guide people to construct their self-identity, thus achieving the purpose of self-actualization.

4.6.2. Difference Analysis

There were three questions on leisure benefits in this study. As shown in

Table 8. Evaluation of leisure benefits.

No.	Items	Mean	Standard Deviation
1	I feel healthier after recreation in the park.	4.11	0.727
2	I feel more hopeful about my future work/life after recreation in the park.	4.04	0.788
3	I will be more engaged in my work/life after recreation in the park.	4.05	0.799

, residents preferred the healthy living dimension, with the mean value reaching 4.11.

In this section, a one-way analysis of variance [51] (

Table 9. Differences in the effects of individual leisure behavior characteristics on leisure benefits.

		Sums of Squares	Degrees of Freedom	Mean Squares	F	Significance
Leisure time spent in parks each visit	Between groups	6.22	3	2.073	4.434	0.004
	Within groups	358.605	767	0.468
	Total	364.825	770
Frequency of leisure activities per month	Between groups	3.001	3	1	2.12	0.096
	Within groups	361.824	767	0.472
	Total	364.825	770
Travel mode	Between groups	1.963	3	0.654	1.383	0.247
	Within groups	362.862	767	0.473
	Total	364.825	770
Place of residence	Between groups	0.751	2	0.376	0.792	0.453
	Within groups	364.074	768	0.474
	Total	364.825	770

) was conducted to determine whether there were any differences, using leisure benefits as a test variable and leisure behavior characteristics as the grouping variables. The results showed that there were no significant differences in the effect of other factors on leisure benefits (Sig > 0.05), except for leisure time spent in parks each visit (Sig = 0.004 < 0.05).

The descriptive statistics of the effect of leisure time spent in parks each visit on leisure benefits (

Table 10. Differences in the effects of leisure time spent in parks each visit on leisure benefits.

Leisure Time Spent in Parks Each Visit	n	Mean	Standard Deviation
Less than 1 h	170	3.96	0.713
1–2 h	325	4.06	0.691
2–3 h	199	4.20	0.618
Over 3 h	77	3.97	0.747
Total	771	4.07	0.688

) showed that individuals who spent 2–3 h and 1–2 h in parks each visit had a higher mean value of leisure benefits (4.20 and 4.06), while individuals who spent less than 1 h in parks each visit had the lowest mean value of leisure benefits (3.96), meaning that it was optimal for residents to spend 1–3 h in parks.

5. Conclusions and Suggestions

5.1. Conclusions

This research studied the relationships among leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment; validated the mediating role of flow experience; and explored the relevant factors affecting leisure benefits. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the data analysis.

First, in the analysis of leisure involvement and flow experience, the standardized path coefficient was 0.939 (p < 0.01), which supported H1. Leisure involvement can significantly predict and positively affect flow experience. The higher the degree of leisure involvement, the higher the probability of flow experience occurring, which not only meets our expectations but also is consistent with the results of previous studies. When activities occur during involvement in leisure, the frequency of flow experience can be increased by the perceptions, feelings, and impact of the activities.

Second, in the analysis of flow experience and place attachment, the standardized path coefficient was 0.589 (p < 0.01), supporting H3. Flow experience has a significant positive effect on place attachment, and the deeper the flow experience, the more likely it is to produce attachment to places, confirming the positive effect of flow experience during park-based leisure on place attachment. With a stronger flow experience, residents will be more actively involved in recreational activities and will develop a stronger attachment to various functions of the park, thus forming place attachment.

Third, flow experience can be an important mediating variable for involvement in leisure and place attachment. On the basis of previous research, this study adopted the structural equation method and introduced the dimension of flow experience as a mediating variable to construct a more systematic and comprehensive structural model linking leisure involvement, flow experience, and place attachment. The empirical evidence showed that the structural model has a good fit. Residents’ leisure involvement in urban parks has both a significant direct effect on place attachment and an indirect effect mediated by flow experience. H2 and H4 were thus supported.

Finally, according to the empirical analysis of the effect of individual leisure behavior characteristics on residents’ leisure benefits, it is optimal for residents to spend 1–3 h of leisure time in parks. A wider big data survey showed that Chinese people spend an average of 2.82 h every day on leisure, and most of them spend 1–3 h a day on leisure, accounting for nearly 40%. The overall trend shows that more leisure time does not make people happier. People who have 1–3 h of leisure time feel much happier, which is consistent with the results of this present study.

In summary, this study confirmed the mediating role of flow experience, i.e., the relationship between leisure involvement and place attachment was influenced by the mediating role of flow experience. According to the empirical analysis of the influence of individual leisure behavior characteristics on residents’ leisure benefits, it is advisable for residents to spend 1–3 h in parks for leisure. Therefore, it is important to establish an emotional connection between residents and urban parks, and to increase residents’ leisure involvement and flow experience in urban parks.

5.2. Suggestions

From the perspective of public health, urban parks, as a public development space with multiple functions, are ideal places for citizens to enjoy leisure activities, which not only help to promote ecological civilization but also increase the happiness and improve the sense of belonging of citizens. Ensuring that every citizen in the park achieves a sense of identity and attachment to the city, ensuring that every corner of the park is not forgotten or deserted, expanding the development space of leisure benefits, improving the quality of life of citizens, and carrying out the mission of “continuously satisfying people’s pursuit of a better life” are not only the requirements of park management but also the responsibility of park managers in the new era.

Therefore, for park managers, when designing strategies for leisure experiences in parks, it is important to enhance visitors’ perceptions of their leisure, pay attention to sensory stimulation, and evoke positive emotions in visitors, thereby increasing citizens’ participation and interaction and providing opportunities to better enter the flow state [52]. In line with visitors’ sensory, emotional, and action experiences, a variety of leisure programs can be developed. When a park hosts various activities, people should be put in a “place” that gives them a sense of detachment from their daily life and work [53] and that provides experiences with more concentration, participation, and pleasure; moreover, people’s leisure time should be kept to 1–3 h.

On the one hand, for urban planners, urban parks should not only present a comfortable and pleasant landscape and ecological environment, but also have the functions of sustainable restoration and renewal, and low-carbon and eco-friendly operation, creating a natural and healthy way of leisure that is close to the origin of life, and constructing an ecological and dynamic park where people and nature live in harmony [54]. On the one hand, in the design of humanistic landscapes, it is necessary to combine cultural and park characteristics, remaining sensitive to times and places, and bringing new vitality to parks [55]. On the other hand, in the post-pandemic era, information technology such as the internet has freed people from the restrictions of time and space in their work and life. Working online has increased leisure time, and people are more eager to relax in urban parks, and thus the demand for leisure facilities and services in urban parks has also increased. Urban planners should adhere to the concept of “putting people first”, making full use of the space in urban parks, avoiding all inconveniences in actual use, and creating high-quality urban parks characterized by spontaneity and a high level of experience.

On the other hand, for the government, since citizens instinctively have needs or preferences for open, low-risk environments, to which they show adaptive attachment, municipal governments should vigorously promote the free opening of urban parks [56]. Moreover, the government can provide communication platforms and financial support, initiate service management, and promote collaboration among organizations and institutions in multiple fields, reaching a balance and harmony through communication, and facilitating public participation. While improving the level of park services, it is vital to promote the innovation of urban park governance, enhance citizens’ value identification with the park community, and internalize multiple levels of service needs, thus promoting personal well-being and overall quality of life, realizing citizens’ pursuit of a better life on the basis of meeting their basic demands.

Moreover, it is necessary to establish and improve cooperation mechanisms and mutual assistance mechanisms among all departments, with a focus on various groups and social integration; strengthening the systematic integration of population, social and ecological health; properly making use of resource characteristics; giving full consideration to accessibility and ecology; and realizing the value of ecosystem services and health promotion. It is essential to construct and improve multiple park spaces to fulfill citizens’ needs for self-identity and social interaction, and promote their physical and mental health, recovery of attention, and formation of place attachment, making parks a leisure space for people to relax their minds and bodies and express themselves. Moreover, it is important to properly regulate the behavior of visitors and guide them to deeply discover the many aspects of leisure produced by urban parks [57].

5.3. Future Research

The COVID-19 pandemic, declared a global public health emergency, has posed a serious threat to human health and life. The spatial scope of residents’ activities has been severely constricted. At the same time, people have developed a new perception of leisure, and their desire for outdoor recreation has been enhanced. Leisure behaviors related to physical resistance and immunity are in popular and fervent demand. Recreation in parks enables those who have lost themselves in a disrupted time to recover themselves, develop a positive mental attitude, and improve their quality of life. Within the restricted boundaries of urban activities, relaxing in parks has become a daily habit for most people. Remodeling the relationship between people and leisure in the post-epidemic era, strengthening the deep integration of leisure with life, and forging a strong community of leisure have become important sources of achievement and happiness for urban residents.

Therefore, the relationship between leisure and mental health, the measurement of leisure benefits, the mechanism of leisure space reconstruction, and the interaction between leisure behavior and locality will be the focus of our team’s future research. In a sense, the study of leisure benefits is a shift in the theory of “sustainable development” towards the study of subjective well-being from a micro-perspective, which is of great value.