Time-series systems analysis demonstrates improved coordination between sports and sustainability systems in China, indicating service transformation drives balanced development.
Sports development and sustainable development are increasingly understood as interconnected systems within the broader process of national modernization. In the context of China’s transition toward high-quality growth, examining their coordinated evolution has become an important research issue. This study investigates whether a stable coupling coordination relationship between the two systems has emerged in China from 2014 to 2023 and identifies the key associated factors. Grounded in systems theory, this study constructs a comprehensive evaluation index system and applies the entropy weight method, the coupling coordination degree model, and grey relational analysis. The results indicate that both systems improved markedly over the study period, with the coupling coordination degree increasing from 0.10000 in 2014, representing severe imbalance, to 0.99498 in 2023, reflecting excellent coordination and a highly stable pattern of development. The strongest associations are observed in service-oriented and structurally upgraded sports indicators, particularly the proportion of sports services (S7), as well as in sustainability dimensions related to market vitality, urban ecological conditions, and cultural development. These results indicate that the relationship between sports and sustainable development is shaped more by structural transformation and service expansion than by simple scale growth. From a policy perspective, priority should be given to the development of sports services, the integration of sports with culture, tourism, and urban systems, the improvement of green infrastructure, and the enhancement of system resilience. More broadly, sports policy should be more fully integrated into the national sustainable development framework to support high-quality, balanced, and long-term development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: