Sustainable Stadia Actualizing the Potential of Community- Owned Stadia Towards Sustainability

Sustainable Stadia

Actualizing the Potential of Community- Owned Stadia Towards Sustainability

Cristhian Gutierrez Robert Mallette Adebola Odumade

School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology

Karlskrona, Sweden 2008

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Abstract

Professional sporting events draw staggering crowds to stadia on a yearly basis. This combined, with the prosocial psychological effects of attending professional games and the cultural meaning of stadia to a community, provide excellent opportunities for municipalities to use their stadia in a movement towards global socio-ecological sustainability. While these opportunities are available, the industry is not well established to realize their potential. Our research, through application of the framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD), offers measures to facilitate such a move. In application of the framework, however, a key threat of professional team monopoly power was identified, putting into question the perpetuation of public ownership over facilities with professional teams as tenants. If a solution is to be reached within this model, a multi-stakeholder approach is endorsed, where reduction of team monopoly power is conceded for the long-term benefits to municipalities.

Keywords

Community Owned Stadia, Community Development, Professional Sports, Strategic Sustainable Development, Monopoly Power, Civic Pride

Statement of Contribution

The ideas generated within our research were done so in the spirit of collaboration and co-creation. Having a diverse set of educational backgrounds, and personal experience, combined with a wide cultural base, allowed our team to investigate topics from many different perspectives.

Cristhian‟s managerial expertise had the group on time and up to date for deadlines and presentations. His research abilities were a team asset, providing technical insight into our project. As well, his ability to visually create meaningful diagrams for deeper understanding provided tools for insightful investigation into complex problems. A strong facilitator, he led the group in the latter stages of our conversations synergising broad concepts and making our research complete.

Robert‟s passion for continual improvement and hard work helped us to always keep going on track and in good shape. As a natural leader he was always aware of our team‟s dynamic and state. Through constant encouragement to the team, always pushing us to do our best, his outstanding facilitation during co-creation sessions was invaluable. His writing skill allowed the thesis work to flow in a logical and effective manner, while his critical thinking maintained within us an awareness to not get lost in details, but rather to always analyse situations and problems in holistic terms.

Bola‟s careful insights into business analysis were an asset in indentifying the industry‟s position and his careful mind for subtleties was very useful in clarifying ideas in all aspects of our research.

Peace,

Cristhian Gutierrez Robert Mallette Adebola Odumade

Acknowledgements

In general, we would like to thank our friends and family, who helped with this project through informal conversations, patience listening and meaningful insights and contributions.

More specifically, we would also like to thank:

Our interviewees and expert panel; without your expertise, patience, and enthusiasm for this project, we would have never been able to complete it.

Our primary advisor, Tony Thompson (PhD Candidate, BTH); for knowing when to step in and when to let us go, as well as, for your overall insight into the process of a project of this magnitude. Your input was priceless in our development.

Our secondary advisor, Richard Blume (Research Associate, BTH); for your razor sharp comments and advice, encyclopaedia-like knowledge of sustainability, and for always keeping us moving in the right direction.

And lastly, the member of Rock On! (MSLS Thesis, 2007) Sarah Brooks, Dan O‟Halloran, and Alexandre Magnin; the clarity of your document was like a third advisor to us, offering insight into structure and flow. Your work was an ambition benchmark from which we constantly compared ourselves.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Our current global context is driven by two trends. Trend 1: a manifestation of the „take-make-waste‟ worldview, systematically decreases the carrying capacity of the world in terms of necessary natural resources for human survival while simultaneously increasing the amount of waste introduced back into the biosphere by human civilization. Trend 2 shows a correlation between global demand for world resources and increasing global population. The unnerving reality of these trends is their convergence. As resources deplete their demand increases. If allowed to persist, these trends will ultimately undermine humanity‟s ability to perpetuate itself (Robèrt 2000).

To avoid this outcome, and move humanity towards sustainability, large scale strategies are required. To aid us in that movement, the international non-governmental organization, The Natural Step (TNS), developed a framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD). That is, a perspective for dealing with sustainability problems within complex systems (Robèrt 2000). This framework outlines a decision making process, adding rigour and insight, for developing strategies towards the sustainable function of an organization in society in the biosphere (Robèrt 2000).

Through its application, organizations work to minimize their risks by developing and assessing strategies made within, scientifically grounded, sustainable constraints.

Our cities each consist of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, making a shift towards sustainability at the community level a useful strategy in agreement with our present global context.

Moving such a mass of people, however, is easier said than done. To induce a societal shift towards sustainability, community governance must learn to use their strengths as key leverage points. In such a strategy, vital social hubs and/or centralized infrastructure will yield positive results towards change—because they assemble many people at once, they are efficient way to „spread the word‟. Perfect for these reasons, community stadiums provide excellent potential as a community platform. As the house of professional sports, stadiums draw staggering crowds world-wide, numbering high into the hundreds of millions annually (List of attendance

figures at domestic professional sports leagues 2008). These numbers alone present a dramatic opportunity for inducing sustainability, however, combined with the positive pro-social psychological effects resulting from spectators sports (Howard 1912; Platow et al. 1999), intervention through use of stadiums is especially appealing. Furthermore, stadiums serve as statement pieces of a community‟s culture; as a symbol of modernity and innovation they come to represent the citizens of the towns in which they stand (Ponder 2004). Thereby, moving a stadium towards sustainability would yield significant momentum towards a societal shift, through changing both the minds and hearts of individuals.

Methods

Our research is framed within the structure of the FSSD, using a large, multi-resource literature review complemented by conceptual diagrams and interviews to inform our views. We used the literature review to understand broad concepts within the stadia industry, translating these finding visually into two system maps. We were then able to understand, from a system perspective, what areas required more research by further literature review or as part of an interview schedule.

When our results were complied, we released them for critical review from industry experts. Having obtained constructive feedback, we revised our findings in line with expert opinion.

Results

Through a categorized assessment of the current reality of stadia, we were able to establish five (5) industry challenges in a transition towards sustainability:

Industry Challenges 1. Creation of Waste

2. Creation of Emissions 3. Community Participation

4. Strategic Use in Community Development

5. Unequal Power Relations between Professional Teams and Municipalities

To engage these industry challenges, sixty-one (61) measure and activities are suggested to facilitate a community in use of their stadium in moving towards sustainability.

Key Findings

Stadia stakeholders are victims of their own collective self-interest, if they all worked together towards a common goal, they would be able to achieve more by undermining each other less.

Careful planning towards sustainability in the construction phase of stadia development is crucial as the industry is currently averse to retrofitting, seeing it as a cost and not as an investment. The effects of not retrofitting are greatly exacerbated by the extensive infrastructure in place.

A gap in stadia planning appears through lack of integration into community strategic planning. Poor integration is manifest in two ways: by forgoing opportunities to increase a community‟s recreation capacity through use of a stadium as a multipurpose public space, and by not seeing stadia in their full potential as an engagement tool to inspire social change.

We understand the stadia industry and professional sports to be at considerable risk. Monopolistic power of professional teams, and the abuse of that power in leveraging new stadia for added profits, undermines community capacity—an effect that cannot persist forever. This social system is fundamentally unsustainable. If solutions are not pursued that

engage the source problems of this system, they are merely quick fixes prolonging eventually collapse.

As monopoly power of professional sports has been challenged in the past with little or no success (Fort and Quirk 1997), it is apparent that if a solution to this problem is to be reached within the model of public-owned facilities with professional teams as leasing tenants, a multi-stakeholder approach is required. Such an approach would need to focus on professional teams conceding their monopolistic power in favour of the long-term benefit of community capacity.

Glossary of Acronyms

4SP‟s—Four Sustainability Principles

BOCOG—The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad

CFC—Chlorofluorocarbons CHP—Combined Heat and Power CLD—Causal Loop Diagram

COS—Community Owned Stadia/Stadium CSF—Critical Success Factors

FSSD—Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development GHG—Greenhouse Gases

LEED—The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design MLB—Major League Baseball

NFL—National Football League NHL—National Hockey League ROI—Return on Investment

SME‟s—Small and Medium Enterprises SSD—Strategic Sustainable Development

SWOT Analysis—Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis

TNS—The Natural Step USD—U.S Dollars

Table of Contents Contents

Statement of Contribution ... iii

Acknowledgements ... iv

Executive Summary ... v

Glossary of Acronyms ... ix

Table of Contents ... x

List of Figure and Tables ... xiii

1 Introduction ... 1

1.1 Context ... 1

1.2 Why Stadiums? ... 3

1.3 Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD) ... 4

1.3.1 The Funnel Metaphor ... 4

1.3.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) 6 1.3.3 Sustainability Principles ... 8

1.4 Scope of Project, Research Question and sub-Questions ... 9

2 Methods ... 12

2.1 Research Design ... 12

2.1.1 Design Structure ... 12

2.2 Data Collection ... 14

2.2.1 Spiral approach ... 15

2.2.2 Literature Review ... 16

2.2.3 Conceptual Diagrams ... 17

2.2.4 Interviews ... 17

2.3 Data Analysis ... 18

2.3.1 Expert Review ... 18

3 Results ... 20

3.1 Current Reality of Community Owned Stadia through the Perspective of SSD ... 20

3.1.1 Internal Operations... 21

3.1.2 Material Flows ... 22

3.1.3 External Stakeholders ... 25

3.1.4 Role in Community ... 27

3.1.5 Design and Retrofitting Planning... 30

3.1.6 Conceptual Diagrams ... 31

3.2 Community Owned Stadia in a Sustainable Society ... 35

3.2.1 Desired Future ... 36

3.2.2 Industry Challenges ... 36

3.2.3 Operational „Success‟ and „Strategies‟ in a transition towards sustainability ... 40

3.3 Critical Success Factors in terms of SSD in a movement towards sustainability ... 41

3.4 Measures and Activities to Facilitate Community Owned Stadia in a Progression toward a Sustainable Society ... 42

3.4.1 Internal Operations... 44

3.4.2 Material Flows ... 45

3.4.3 External Stakeholders ... 46

3.4.4 Role in Community ... 47

3.4.5 Design and Retrofitting Planning... 48

3.4.6 Uneven power relationships ... 49

4 Discussion ... 50

4.1 General Strengths and Limitations ... 50

4.2 Research Question and Results Analysis ... 50

4.2.1 Sub Question 1: What do community owned stadiums currently look like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development? ... 51

4.2.2 Sub Question 2: Can a community-owned stadium exist in a sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like? ... 53

4.2.3 Sub Question 3: What are the critical success factors in terms of strategic sustainable development in a movement towards sustainability for a community owned stadium?... 54

4.2.4 Main question: What are some measures that can be undertaken by a community owned stadium in a movement towards a sustainable society? ... 56

5 Conclusion ... 58

6 Further Research ... 59

 Alternative models of ownership (private, public/private) and their implications for a movement towards sustainability, .. 59 7 Works Cited ... 60

List of Figure and Tables

Figures

Figure 1.1 „The Funnel‟... 5

Figure 1.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)... 7

Figure 2.1 Interactive Approach... 14

Figure 2.2 Spiral Approach ...15

Figure 3.1 Day-to-Day Operations of Community Owned Stadia... 32

Figure 3.2 Ticket Revenue and its effects on Community Capacity... 33

Tables Table 2.1 Method Matrix... 13

Table 3.1 Summary of Stadia Sustainable Challenges... 39

Table 3.2 Transitional Objective and Goals... 40

Table 3.3 SSD SWOT Analysis for Community Owned Stadia... 42

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

In 1987, a quintessential document of sustainability was published: the Brundtland Report, or „Our Common Future‟. Within, the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development was described, citing connections and solutions towards global social, economic and environmental issues (Our Common Future 1987). However important these solutions might have been, Brundtland‟s legacy is attached to giving much needed clarity to the idea of sustainability and offering a definition still widely used. „Sustainable Development‟ is „development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs‟ (Our Common Future 1987). The Bruntland Report, however, was not a proactive approach to global issues, rather, it was a reactive perspective born from an obviously unsustainable context. In 1974, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, revealed the negative consequence of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in showing their breakdown of the O-zone layer (Molina and Rowland 1974). In 1984, the Bhopal, Union Carbide, disaster showed that reducing health and safety budgets for added profit had negative social and environmental consequences (What Happened? n.d.); the Chernobyl disaster created similar lessons but on a global scale (Chronology of Key Events n.d.). Although not exhaustive, these examples clearly show that Brundtland‟s contribution was as timely as it was required.

Since 1987, progress has been slow, if at all. Replacing the issue of CFC‟s, solved via ratification of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substance that deplete the O-Zone Layer (Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the O-Zone Layer 2000) has been a global awakening to the crisis of climate change. Health and safety issues were further brought to forefront of global awareness with the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989 (Spill Prevention and Response n.d.). In 1997 the world answered by drafting the

Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto Protocol n.d.) aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The unavoidable issue of „Peak Oil‟ is causing petroleum price to sky rocket worldwide as global reserves dwindle (Klare 2004). Absolute Poverty has emerged as the crusade of some high profile advocates, as they look to make „poverty history‟ (The World Can't Wait 2007). Although made in specific reference to climate change, the following statement made by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, succinctly describes our current global context on whole:

“The situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs

would increase dramatically. We are at a crossroads: one path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other one to oblivion.”

(Lastest Comments 2008)

Ban Ki-moon‟s statement leads one to question: why have the important developments made in the Brundtland Report failed to yield significant results towards a sustainable society? Of course there are many answers:

lack of political will, entrenchment of an inadequate worldview, and misunderstanding the gravity of sustainability are a few. While crucially important, these inhibitors, even if solved individually, would leave intact a global perspective of reacting to problems as they arise. That is, „[w]hen we eventually reverse the build-up in carbon dioxide, there will be another issue waiting for us‟ (Noble or Savage? 2007). By reacting to subsequent crisis after crisis, our global civilization puts itself in undo risk while simultaneously expending undo financial, environmental and human resources. What is more, the possibility of global issues coalescing into a

„perfect storm‟ of risks jeopardizes our current, and future, situation further (Willard 2005). In fact, recently, at the World Economic Forum 2008, Paul Hewson (U2‟s, Bono) and Al Gore publically connected absolute poverty and climate change (Gore, Bono Press West on Climate, Poverty 2008), in what may prove to be the breaking point of the „quiet before the storm‟.

But all is not lost. A shift towards a sustainable society is still very much possible.

To aid us in that movement, the international non-governmental organization, The Natural Step (TNS), developed a framework for strategic sustainable development (FSSD). It is an approach to deal with sustainability problems within complex systems (Robèrt 2000). This framework outlines a decision making process, adding rigour and insight,

for developing strategies towards the sustainable function of an organization in society in the biosphere (Robèrt 2000). Through its application, organizations work to minimize their risks by developing and assessing strategies made within, scientifically grounded, sustainable constraints.

1.2 Why Stadiums?

The World‟s current population is approximately 6.6 billion people, with a 49% of them living in densely populated cities (World Population n.d.).

Each one of our cities consists of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, making a shift towards sustainability at the community level a useful strategy in agreement with our present global context.

Moving such a mass of people, however, is easier said than done. In order to induce a societal shift towards sustainability, community governance must learn to use their strengths as key leverage points. In such a strategy, vital social hubs and/or centralized infrastructure will yield positive results towards change—because they assemble many people at once, they are efficient way to „spread the word‟. Perfect for these reasons, community stadiums provide excellent potential as a community platform. As the house of professional sports, stadiums draw staggering crowds world-wide, numbering high into the hundreds of millions annually (List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues 2008). These numbers alone present a dramatic opportunity for inducing sustainability, however, combined with the positive pro-social psychological effects resulting from spectators sports (Howard 1912, Platow et al. 1999), intervention through use of stadiums is especially appealing. Furthermore, stadiums also serve as statement pieces of a community‟s culture; as a symbol of modernity and innovation they come to represent the citizens of the towns in which they stand (Ponder 2004). Thereby, moving a stadium towards sustainability would yield significant momentum towards a societal shift, through changing both the minds and hearts of individuals.

In correspondence to these ideas, is it important to acknowledge that sustainability is being integrated into stadiums (Business Developments

2002, Ellison 2005, Grogan 2000, Short Subjects 2005, Random Samples 2006) However, strategic sustainability remains an oversight by stadia planners, designers, builders, management and employees. As stadia are massive capital investments for a community, with price tags in some cases exceeding one billion USD (Yankees break ground on new $1 billion home 2006, Quebec's big owe stadium debt is over 2006), it is vital that their potential for community development are maximised; otherwise, opportunity costs of such facilities are too great (Baade and Sanderson 1997). A strategic sustainable approach applied to stadia will actualize stadia‟s potential for community development by increasing the efficiency of the facility itself, thus leaving more funds to allocate elsewhere, but also by engaging root causes of why stadia are produced, ensuring that drivers behind their construction are also sustainable.

1.3 Strategic Sustainable Development (SSD)

1.3.1 The Funnel Metaphor

Our current global context is driven by two trends. The first trend is a manifestation of the „take-make-waste‟ worldview, showing systematic decreases in the World‟s carrying capacity in terms of necessary natural resources for human survival, while simultaneously indicating increasing in the amount of waste introduced back into the biosphere by human civilization. The second trend shows a correlation between global demand for world resources and increasing global population. The unnerving reality of these trends is their convergence. As resources deplete, their demand increases. If allowed to persist, these trends will ultimately undermine humanity‟s ability to perpetuate itself (Robèrt 2000). Metaphorically, we can understand these trends as a funnel (see Figure 1.1), where the walls of the funnel are closing as humanity attempts to remains within those walls (Robèrt 2000, Ny 2006).

Present Future

Sustainable Society

Planning Options

Declining

Biodiversity Groundwater Restorative capacity Fairness and Equity Resource Availability Social a

nd Eviromental Networks

Increasing

Population Global Demand

Market Pressure Competitiveness

Regulation

Figure 1.1 ‘The Funnel’ (Robèrt 2000)

Strategic sustainable development recognizes the above trends and looks for “upstream” solutions to source causes. Engaging source issues is of particular importance as it ensures newly derived solutions are not in fact new problems to different issues. Once a clear understanding of these notions is achieved, the goal of strategic sustainable development becomes clearly defining sustainability and how to achieve a sustainable society by the avoidance of the funnel walls.

1.3.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)

SSD recognizes human civilization and its operation within the biosphere is a complex system. Unpredictable due to many driving factors and delaying effects, complex systems present a number of challenges for effective decision making. To facilitate a decision making process and to add rigour and insight, a five level frameworkfor strategic sustainable development has been created, as adapted from a generic five level framework for decision making within complex systems (Robért 2000, Robért et al.

2002). The framework assists in creating a consistent understanding of systems, shared way of thinking about sustainability, and avoids reductionism of issues. The five levels, with a level-by-level explanation, follows:

Each measure conceived at the Strategy Level is be evaluated by three questions.

1) Does the measure move us towards sustainability? i.e. Does it operate within the 4SP’s?

2) Is the measure a flexible platform? i.e. Does it permit flexibility in the future as new technologies arise or as trends shift?

3) Does the measure provide a positive return on investment (ROI)? i.e.

Will the measure result in increased profit, social development, and/or environmental preservation/regeneration

Level 1 System

Level 2 Sucess

Level 3 Strategy

Level 4 Action

Level 5 Tools

Seeking out available tools that complement prioritized measures.

Tools are understood in three categories;

1) Strategic: espousing measures with strategic goals.

2) System: measuring of the system to gain insight and gauge progress 3) Capacity: serve to increase people’s understanding of strategic sustainable development

Using the four sustainability principles as a frame, a notion of a successful future (Vision that is created in Level 2) is derived from which we can backcast (We can’t predict the future, but we can invent it).

There are four sustainability principles which allow human society to sustainably operate within the biosphere. (See section 1.3.3).

System understood within the context of ‘society within the biosphere’ and based on laws of thermodynamics, natural cycles, and social systems

Figure 1.2 Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)

A key point of the framework is the incorporation of the sustainability principles (Holmberg 1995, Broman et al. 2000, Ny et al. 2006) at the success level and their unique role within the method of „backcasting from sustainability principles‟ (Robèrt 1994, Holmberg 1998, Holmberg and Robèrt 2000, Broman et al. 2000). By using a scientifically-grounded notion of sustainability as a creative frame to inform our idea of a

sustainable human civilisation, then creatively imagining strategic measures to move towards that future, FSSD facilitates convergence towards a shared vision of sustainability. A backcasting technique is used, as opposed to forecasting, with understanding that predicting trends within complex systems is impossible. Backasting, therefore, represents a shift from considering the likelihood of determining feasibility to a strategy of

flexibility. That is not to say that forecasting is useless. As a complement to backcasting, forecasting informs the space and scale of development, not the direction (Holmberg and Robèrt 2000; Robèrt 2000; Robèrt et al. 2005).

Thus, as actors within such a system, we must be ready to act creatively and quickly to changing trends. To position ourselves otherwise, puts us at risk of hitting the walls of the funnel.

1.3.3 Sustainability Principles

As mentioned above, a definition of a successful system using a scientifically grounded notion of sustainability is used at the success level of FSSD. This becomes relevant only as we understand the un- sustainability inherent in the current activities of society as it is then logical to design principles for sustainability as restrictions (Robert, Yamamoto, et al. 2006). These principles were developed within the following special criteria as premises:

 Based on a scientifically agreed upon view of the world.

 Necessary to achieve sustainability.

 Sufficient to cover all aspects of sustainability.

 Concrete enough to guide actions and problem solving, and preferably.

 Mutually exclusive to facilitate comprehension and monitoring.

From this, four basic Sustainability Principles (TNS System Conditions) were developed through a scientific consensus-building process (Holmerg, Robert and Eriksson, 1996). First, basic principles of sociecological non- sustainability were identified by a cluster of downstream socioecological impacts into a few well defined upstream mechanisms. Afterwards a “not”

was inserted in each to direct focus to the underlying systemic errors of societal design. The 4SP are:

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematic increases of…

1) concentrations of materials extracted from the Earth’s crust 2) concentrations of materials produced by society

3) physical degradation of the natural environment

and…

4) In a sustainable society people are not subject to conditions which undermine their ability to meet their own needs

1.4 Scope of Project, Research Question and sub-Questions

Through our research we found the majority of global leaders in sustainable stadia are associated with mega event, i.e. World Cups and Olympic Games. Mega events have entire set of sustainability issues different from those of stadiums themselves. In those developments a stadium is one aspect of a much larger development, the majority of which is planned with extensive use for a small time period (often less than one month). While our research can be applied, in part, to stadia developed within the context of

mega events, our research is focused on facilities not associated with such events. Our focus rather is directed towards community owned stadia (COS), which we define as professional grade sporting facilities built for lease by professional teams and owned by either a municipality or state/provincial government.

Our research develops two narratives simultaneously: one discussing the sustainable management of stadia and the second, conditions by which COS are created. We have investigated both concurrently for two main reasons;

they are closely interrelated and we wanted to „meet the industry where it is‟. We have chosen to present our research in such a way because the manner in which stadia are produced is a reflection of how they are managed. Likewise, with the massive amount of infrastructure in place, it is complacent to ignore how constructed stadia function and how they might be operationally improved towards sustainability. With this in mind, it is the purpose of our research to offer suggestions, from a systems perspective, in how community owned stadia can move towards sustainability.

Primary Research Question:

What are some measures that can be undertaken by a community owned stadium in a movement towards a sustainable society?

We left the intended audience of our research open to a wide set of stakeholder (municipalities, stadia managers, and professional level tenants) through the semantics of our primary question. We see this as essential to moving stadia towards sustainability due to multiple stakeholders‟

involvement within stadia operations. To facilitate the process of creating solutions towards sustainability, each of our questions relates to an aspect of planning by use of the FSSD. Our main question represents possible strategies and activities that could help in a movement of stadia towards sustainability. We then divided our main question into three questions necessary to be addressed in developing strategies through use of the FSSD:

Sub question 1:

 What do community owned stadiums currently look like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development?

Answering this question increased our understanding of the necessary internal practices, material flows, stakeholder relations, impacts within a community at large and broad planning details of community owned stadia.

By answering this question we gain an understanding of the system of which we are planning and making decision in, a requisite of the first level of FSSD.

Sub question 2:

 Can a community-owned stadium exist in a sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like?

Addressing this question allowed us to assess whether there was room for stadia in a sustainable society by facilitated our understanding of the necessary elements required in creating such facilities. With this understanding, we were able to evaluate the gap between the current reality of the stadia industry and where it would be in a sustainable society. With knowledge gained in answering this question, we understood a working definition of success of stadia in a sustainable future from which we could backcast, a necessary requisite of the second level of FSSD.

Sub question 3:

 What are the critical success factors in terms of strategic sustainable development in a movement towards sustainability for a community owned stadium?

By using the business strategy of a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) through the perspective of SSD, we were able to understand the position of the stadia industry and identify its critical success factors (CSF). Doing so permitted insight into those elements that would prove most useful in closing the gap between the current reality of community owned stadia and how they would function in a sustainable society. In determining the CSF‟s we are taking a closer look into how the system operates in order to induce change within it. This can be understood within the first level of the framework and speaks to the iterative nature of FSSD.

2 Methods

2.1 Research Design

2.1.1 Design Structure

We used a methods matrix to derive which actions would be most appropriate for our research. The results are listed below.

Table 2.1 Method Matrix

Methods Matrix Whodowe needto contact? Article Databases Stadia Managers Sustainability Consultants Academics inCommunity Development SUBQUESTIONS Stadia managers Sustainability Consultants Conceptual diagrams Thesis members Thesis members Conceptual diagrams

Where canwe findthis information? Literature review on stadiums: Economic Aspects Social Aspects Environmental Aspects Interviews with experts

Review from experts Literature review Contact and interview of experts (internet search) Conceptual diagrams Identification of gaps surfaced in analysis of current reality of stadiums as compared to 4 SP‟s SWOT analysis of the currently reality of community owned stadia

What kindof informationwill getus the answer? Roleof stadium ina community in general and in terms of sustainability

Roleof stadium ina sustainable society

SW

OT of community owned stadia in terms of SSD How stadiums are integrated into a community‟s strategic plans What is being done in stadiums currently in terms of SSD Requirements of stadiums to be in compliance with the 4 SP‟s The results of a SWOT analysis from the perspective of SSD will give us the necessary information

Why do we need to know this? Tooffercompelling document thatcanbe usedinstadiumsfor communities wantingto move towards sustainability To identify a benchmark for community owned stadiums from the perspective of SSD To understand the role of a community owned stadium in a sustainable society To understand a community owned stadium‟s current position in society

What do we need to know? Measures thatwill bring communityownedstadia towards sustainability What do community owned stadiums currently look like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development? Can a community-owned stadium exist in a sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like? What are the critical success factors in terms of strategic sustainable development in a movement towards sustainability for a community owned stadium?

To structure the process of our research we chose the iterative approach developed by Maxwell.

Goals:

Why this study?

Methods:

What will you actually do

Validity:

How might you be wrong?

Conceptual Framework:

What do you think is going on?

Research Question :

What do you want to understand?

Figure 2.1 Interactive Approach (Maxwell, 2005)

The interactive model presented by Maxwell was beneficial to our research because of its non-linear structure. By being flexible, we were able to reorient components of our research as new developments arose; thus, hedging against pathological assessments and the chance of overlooking data.

2.2 Data Collection

2.2.1 Spiral approach

To compliment Maxwell‟s perspective, we also employed a spiral approach to learning for our data collection.

Figure 2.2 Spiral Approach

As we moved from a literature review through conceptual diagrams, interviews, and finally received expert feedback, the depth of insight gained into crucial aspects of stadia‟s operations were greater.

The combined elements of a spiral and iterative perspective produced a deep, non-linear approach, proving essential to our process.

2.2.2 Literature Review

Purpose: Our literature review served a dual purpose: to justify our research by showing the great potential of stadia as a tool in moving communities towards a sustainable society; and, to help inform our

understanding of the role of stadiums within a community, i.e. stakeholders, relationships, management, influence, etc.

Topics researched: To form as complete of an understanding as possible, our research investigated stadia in terms of their: economic, environmental and social aspects.

Economic Aspects:

 Economic effects of stadiums

 Importance of location Environmental Aspects:

 Waste management practices

 Municipal planning processes Social Aspects:

 Civic Pride

 Community consultation processes

 Spectator Psychology

 Crowd Psychology Validity:

Because information gathered was limited to sources within North America and Europe our interpretation of the stadia industry is limited and will be skewed towards trends in those areas.

2.2.3 Conceptual Diagrams

Purpose: Conceptual maps (i.e. system maps and causal loop diagrams) were developed to give form to our content and were the centre of our early conversations. Likewise, concept maps facilitated the creation of our transitional objectives and goals.

2.2.4 Interviews

Purpose: Investigation of our literature review and conceptual maps indentified gaps in our knowledge regarding the currently reality of stadia from the perspective of SSD. These gaps were used to produce an interview schedule that would complete our understanding of a stadium‟s operation and role in society.

Topics researched: In forming our interview schedule, five (5) broad categories were used to structure our inquiries:

 Internal Operations

 Material Flows

 External Stakeholders

 Role in Community

 Design and Retrofitting Planning.

Sources consulted: We interviewed four experts.

 Dustin Cherniawski, Head of Business Operations, SymbiAudit, Sustainability Consultancy, Vancouver, Canada

 Julian Radlein, President and Industrial Ecologist, SymbiAudit, Sustainability Consultancy, Vancouver, Canada

 John Haverstock, Stadium Manager, McMahon Stadium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

 Gayle Burgess, Behavioural Change Programme Manager, London Sustainability Exchange, London, England.

Validity:

Due to the small number of interviewees, our research may not capture the full picture of the industry. Nevertheless, by interviewing consultants in the field of sustainable stadia, we were able to gain insight into many facilities and general trends within the industry. Also, as our interviewees were only from North America and Europe, our research excludes a clear understanding of how stadia operate elsewhere in the world.

2.3 Data Analysis

Information complied through methods describe above was arranged in a results package and sent to an expert panel for review.

2.3.1 Expert Review

Purpose: To gain insight and feedback regarding the usefulness, clarity, and validity of our results as presented in an information booklet.

Topics researched: Participants were sought out based on information gained through our literature review, interviews and prior experience.

Sources consulted: Candidates were approached based on their knowledge in the field of stadia management or community development.

 Dr. Gayle Broad. Department Head; Community Economic and Social Development, Algoma University College, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada

 Dustin Cheriawski, Head of Business Operations, SymbiAudit, Sustainability Consultants, Vancouver, Canada

 Julian Radlein, President and Industrial Ecologist, SymbiAudit, Sustainability Consultants, Vancouver, Canada

 John Haverstock, Stadium Manager, McMahon Stadium, Calgary Alberta, Canada

Outcomes:

We invited our interviewees to be part of our expert panel with the expectation of having external interest from at least three other parties. We consulted many other contacts, however, interest was limited.

Validity:

As most of our expert panel were interviewees, our results may be less objective. Also, as the members of our expert panel are entirely from North America, our research will be biased towards a North American perspective.

3 Results

Our results are listed below in corresponding order to the logical structure of our research questions.

 Section 3.1 addresses results corresponding to our first sub- question: What do community owned stadiums currently look like from the perspective of strategic sustainable development?

 Section 3.2 addresses result corresponding to our second sub- question: Can a community-owned stadium exist in a sustainable society, and if so, what might it look like?

 Section 3.3 addresses results corresponding to our third sub- question: What are the critical success factors in terms of strategic sustainable development in a movement towards sustainability for a community owned stadium?

 Section 3.4 addresses results corresponding to our main question:

What are some measures that can be undertaken by a community owned stadium in a movement towards a sustainable society?

3.1 Current Reality of Community Owned Stadia through the Perspective of SSD

From our interview process, our results were structured in five broad categories, each corresponding to an essential aspect of the operation of COS in terms of strategic sustainability: Internal Operations, Material Flows, External Stakeholders, Role in Community, Design and Retrofitting Planning. Completing our understanding of these five categories are

conceptual diagrams depicting the overall function of daily operations and conditions from which stadia are produced.

3.1.1 Internal Operations

Our research revealed three essential internal stakeholders that participate in the operational function and decision making of COS. They are as follows:

Owners

One of two groups owns the facility, either the municipality or the state/provincial government. In the practical terms of day-to-day operations, no difference was found in either case of ownership.

Rental agreements are the essential contract outlining roles and responsibilities over the facility its terms of its use. These contracts vary dramatically with different revenue splits over parking, concession, and ticket sales. They also vary in terms of maintenance responsibilities and capital expenditures (Fort and Quirk 1997). Despite the details of these contracts varying, an overall trend among them is their highly subsidized rate. Tenants (the professional teams) enact their monopolistic market power over stadia owners, e.g. by threat of relocation, to create bidding wars between communities. Communities then offer reduced prices as they vie for professional teams (Delaney and Eckstein 2003).

Pressure is being exerted upon municipal and state owners for more responsible management and creation of stadia by public opinion. Citizens understand the large opportunity cost associated with stadia and have voiced thier discontent with thier unneeded construction (Delaney and Eckstein 2003).

Managers

Managers work act as middle men between owners and tenants. They are responsible for carrying out the day-to-day operations of the facility and

have considerable autonomy to do so. However, for any capital improvement projects, they must seek approval of the owners (Haverstock 2008). Autonomy at this level permits facility managers to construct procurement policies individually, that is, apart from other tenants and on their own terms (Cherniawski 2008, Haverstock 2008, Radlein 2008).

A sustainability culture is emerging organically in the management of stadia, of which the major driving is seeing sustainable action of a cost saving measure (Cherniawski 2008, Radlein 2008).

Tenants

Professional teams are the only tenant to have decision making power within stadia. They use this clout, however, in ways which undermine the long term interests of owners. This is carried out in two ways; the aforementioned subsidized rents, and also through exclusivity in lease agreements contracts. Generally, each stadium has one professional tenant (Cherniawski 2008). That is, where a city might have professional football and baseball teams, sports in which two teams could share a facility, generally there are two separate facilities.

Also mentioned above, professional teams have individualized procurement policies. While sustainability criteria are emerging in these policies, it is clear by the excessive amount of waste produced that their emergence is still in its infancy. These procurement policies are crucial in moving a stadium towards sustainable because “a stadium on any given day, is for the most part, only as sustainable as the event planner” (Cherniawski 2008).

3.1.2 Material Flows

Procurement

Our interviewees revealed that within COS procurement policies are created by third parties or suppliers hired by tenants. That is, there were no general, facility-wide procurement policies in place for the facilities we investigated (Cherniawski 2008, Haverstock 2008, Radlein 2008).



In facilities primarily designed and constructed for legacy events (i.e.

Olympics Games in Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010 and London 2012), sustainable procurement have been approached with particular emphasis.

First steps in sustainable purchasing have been done in the Environmental Management System of Beijing 2008 (Green Olympics in Beijing-- BOCOG's Environmental Activities 2004). The Sustainable Purchasing, Licensing and Business Development of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics Games Committee is evaluated against sustainability and ethical practices of all suppliers and licensees (V. O. Games 2006) For London 2012, procurement policies were launched with several sustainability aspects (L.

O. Games 2007).

In the exceptional case of the Australian Olympics Games in 2000, the Olympic Park, in which ANZ Stadium is situated, developed a sustainability policy that extended to adjacent apartments through sustainable procurement of water, energy, landscape materials, office equipment and materials, building materials and land and space (Lambous 2002).

Waste

Waste management practices vary between facilities depending on local recycling infrastructure, municipal by-laws and state legislation. Barriers include a lack of legal frameworks and regulations to deal with violations (apart from western Europe) (New Soccer stadium sets goals in sustainable waste management 2005), a lack of urgency with regards to resource availability (Cherniawski 2008, Radlein 2008) and a fee structure in place to for recycling collection (Cherniawski 2008, Radlein 2008).

Successful solutions have been implemented to address some of these issues. In western Europe, legal frameworks limit landfill usage, shift the responsibility of refuge collection to the facility itself, thus causing an economic disincentive for added waste. Likewise, these laws restrict final waste disposal to municipal plants, landfills and incinerators with recycling infrastructure (New Soccer stadium sets goals in sustainable waste management 2005). The Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany is a global leader in waste avoidance: it has implemented a deposit/refund system for all beverage cups and dishes, avoids as much packaging as