THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF SPORTS EVENTS: TRIATHLON … · Triathlon is a relatively new sport, however, its popularity is growing fast. As yet, little research has been conducted

i

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

OF SPORTS EVENTS:

TRIATHLON IN THE UK

by

Rose Waterman

Thesis presented in part-fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science in accordance

with the regulations of the University of East Anglia

School of Environmental Sciences

University of East Anglia

University Plain

Norwich

NR4 7TJ August 2007

© 2007 Rose Waterman

This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who

consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that

no quotation from the dissertation, nor any information derived therefrom, may be

published without the author�s prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the

understanding that it represents an internal University document and that neither the

University nor the author are responsible for the factual or interpretative correctness

of the dissertation.

pdfMachine A pdf writer that produces quality PDF files with ease!

Produce quality PDF files in seconds and preserve the integrity of your original documents. Compatible across nearly all Windows platforms, simply open the document you want to convert, click “print”, select the

“Broadgun pdfMachine printer” and that’s it! Get yours now!

http://www.pdfmachine.com?cl

ii

ABSTRACT

All sports activities and events impact on the environment. Growing awareness and

concern for the environment has put increasing pressures and demands on the

sports industry to try and manage their environmental impacts. Various

environmental management systems, standards, guidelines and charters are

currently in use in the sports industry.

Triathlon is a relatively new sport, however, its popularity is growing fast. As yet, little

research has been conducted on the environmental impacts and the environmental

management of triathlon.

A literature review, a questionnaire survey of triathlon event organisers and an

interview with the Chief Executive Officer of the British Triathlon Federation were

used to identify the main environmental impacts caused by triathlon, to assess the

current environmental awareness of triathlon event organisers, to investigate

environmental management practices currently used in triathlon and to determine the

necessity for environmental management within triathlon.

Results showed that the activities involved with organising and running a triathlon do

have the potential to cause environmental damage; that current environmental

awareness of event organisers is lacking; that environmental management practices

currently used in triathlon are minimal; and that there is a need for environmental

management in triathlon in the future.

Based on these findings, recommendations on the most appropriate environmental

management measures that could be taken when planning and organising triathlons

were made. It was concluded that a web-based set of environmental guidelines

would be the most appropriate environmental management measure for triathlon due

to their low cost, their adaptability and their likely acceptance and adoption by event

organisers.

Although the aims of this project have been met, its limitations have also been

recognised and the potential for future research has been identified.





iii

CONTENTS LIST

Abstract ��..�. ii

Contents List ��.. iii

Acknowledgements ��... v

List of Figures �� vi

List of Tables �� vii

List of Appendices �� vii

List of Abbreviations ��... viii

Glossary of Terms ��..�.. ix

CHAPTER 1: Project Background ��... 1

1.1 Introduction ��............. 1

1.2 Literature Review �� 1

1.2.1 Environmental Management ��. 1

1.2.2 Sport and the Environment ��. 4

1.2.2.1 Environmental Impacts in Sport ��. 4

1.2.2.2 Environmental Management in Sport �� 8

1.2.3 Triathlon and the Environment �� 12

CHAPTER 2: Aims and Methodology ��.. 20

2.1 Aims ��.. 20

2.2 Methodology ��. 20

2.2.1 Literature Review ��.. 21

2.2.2 Questionnaire Survey ��....... 22

2.2.2.1 Questionnaire Design �� 22

2.2.2.2 Questionnaire Analysis ��. 25

2.2.2.3 Limitations ��... 26

2.2.3 Supplementary Interviews �� 28

2.2.3.1 Limitations ��... 29





iv

CHAPTER 3: Results and Discussion ��...�.. 30

3.1 Summary of Questionnaire Respondents ��.30

3.2 Environmental Impacts of Triathlon ��... 31

3.3 Environmental Awareness of Triathlon Event Organisers ��. 40

3.4 Environmental Management in Triathlon ��..... 43

3.4.1 Current Practices ��.. 43

3.4.2 Necessity �� 45

3.4.3 Recommendations for the Future ��... 46

CHAPTER 4: Conclusions ��...54

4.1 Summary of Results ��..��...54

4.2 Limitations ��..58

4.3 Future Research ��... 60

References ��....... 61

Appendices ��... 68





v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the following people for their help and support throughout the

production of this thesis:

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Tracey Nitz and Alan Bond and all the

other MSc staff, for their continued guidance and advice.

Secondly, I would like to thank all the people who took the time and effort to complete

and return my questionnaires; without their input this research would not have been

possible.

Thirdly, I would like to thank Norman Brook, of the British Triathlon Federation, for

taking the time to speak to me and discuss his opinions.

Finally, I would like to thank all my family and friends for their continued

encouragement and support, their many suggestions and their often much needed

distractions.





vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Facilities available at triathlons ��..��. 32

Figure 2: Presence of significant or rare species, areas designated as protected by

national or local authorities and areas of cultural or archaeological importance in the

area covered by triathlons�....��.�.� 34

Figure 3: Event organiser�s perceptions of the level of environmental impact caused

by pollution produced by triathlons ...�� 35

Figure 4: Main considerations given by event organisers when making purchasing

decisions ��..��...��. 41

Figure 5: Changes in competitor numbers attending triathlon compared to previous

events ��...��. 46

Figure 6: The main reasons given by event organiser�s for not adopting

environmental management practices in triathlon ��...�...�... 48

Figure 7: Event organiser�s opinions on the need for more environmental guidance in

triathlon ��...��.. 49

Figure 8: Event organiser�s suggestions on the type of guidance they would like to

help them manage the environmental impacts of their event ��................. 49





vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: The predicted potential environmental impacts of triathlon ��......�14

Table 2: Matrix to assess the suitability of environmental management tools for

triathlon ��..51

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for event organisers on the environmental management

of triathlons in the UK ��...��. 68

Appendix 2: Draft environmental guidelines for triathlon ��...��...� 80





viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation

BSI = British Standards Institution

BTF = British Triathlon Federation

CBA = Cost Benefit Analysis

CTG = Committed to Green

EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment

EMAS = Eco-management and Audit Scheme

EMS = Environmental Management System

FA = Football Association

FIM = International Motorcycling Federation

ISO = International Organisation for Standardisation

ITFC = Ipswich Town Football Club

IWSF = International Water Ski Federation

NSAA = National Ski Areas Association

PPP = Policy, Plan or Programme

SEA = Strategic Environmental Assessment

SME = Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise

UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme




http://www.fim.ch/en/default.asp?item=3


ix

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Adventure Racing: a multi-discipline sport typically compromising cross-country

running, mountain biking, canoeing and navigation; often termed �outdoor triathlon�

(Ace Races 2007).

Long distance triathlon (also known as ironman distance): a triathlon

compromising a 3800m swim, a 180km cycle and a 42km run (British Triathlon

2007c).

Medium-sized enterprise: an enterprise which has between 50 and 249 employees,

and either has an annual turnover between �7 million and �40 million, or an annual

balance sheet between �5 million and �27 million, and is an independent enterprise

(Commission of the European Community 1996).

Micro-sized enterprise: an enterprise which has between 1 and 9 employees and

either has an annual turnover or an annual balance sheet less than �2 million, and is

an independent enterprise (Commission of the European Community 1996).

Middle distance triathlon: a triathlon compromising a 2500m swim, a 80km cycle

and a 20km run (British Triathlon 2007c).

Novice triathlon: a triathlon designed to cater for novice triathletes (those who have

competed in less than three triathlons); events often cover shorter distances and

usually start with a pool-based swim rather than an open water swim.

Open water triathlon: a triathlon where the swim section is held in an open body of

water, e.g. a lake, river or ocean, rather than in a swimming pool.

Small-sized enterprise: an enterprise which has between 10 and 49 employees and

either an annual turnover not exceeding �7 million, or an annual balance sheet total

not exceeding �5 million, and is an independent enterprise (Commission of the

European Community 1996).





x

Sprint distance triathlon: a triathlon typically compromising a 750m swim, a 20km

cycle and a 5km run (British Triathlon 2007c).

Standard distance triathlon (also known as Olympic distance): a triathlon

compromising a 1500m swim, a 40km cycle and a 10km run (British Triathlon 2007c).

Super sprint distance triathlon: a triathlon typically compromising a 300m swim, a

10km cycle and a 2.5km run (British Triathlon 2007c).

Transition: the time spent during a triathlon transferring from one discipline to

another. Often shortened to T1 (transfer from swim to cycle) and T2 (transfer from

cycle to run).

Transition area: the area in which transition takes place in a triathlon; typically

incorporates racking for bikes and areas for competitors to leave their equipment.

The area is usually surrounded by barriers or fencing with single entry and exit

points.

Triathlon: a multi-discipline sport involving a continuous race in the three

disciplines of swimming, cycling and running. A standard triathlon is made up of a

swim, followed by a cycle, followed by a run (British Triathlon 2007c).

Wave start: a staggered start in a triathlon where competitors start in small groups or

waves rather then all together.





1

CHAPTER 1: Project Background

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Triathlon is a continuous multi-sport event made up of three disciplines, swimming,

cycling and running. Events require competitors to complete each discipline back-to-

back against the clock; the transition between each of the three components is

therefore also vital and is often known as the fourth discipline (British Triathlon

2007c). Events can vary in length and can cover a variety of terrains. Events

currently take place across the world (British Triathlon 2007c).

It is suggested that triathlon can impact on the environment; little research, however,

has been conducted on these impacts or their extent. No environmental standards,

systems, regulations or guidance currently exist in the UK to manage the

environmental impacts of triathlon. This project intends to contribute to filling this gap

in research.

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section aims to set out the background for this project by presenting the findings

of a literature review. It examines the current state of practice and research in terms

of environmental management in general and within the sports industry and then

looks specifically at the environmental impacts caused by, and the environmental

management used in triathlon. It identifies gaps within the data and it is these which

provided justification for this project.

1.2.1 Environmental Management

Environmental Management is a broad, generic term covering a wide spectrum of

subjects; it is therefore not surprising that no single, concise definition is in use

(Barrow 1999). Available definitions vary in their approach and encompass a diverse





2

range of aspects, including environmental, social and economic considerations

(Barrow 1999).

Taking into account this plethora of definitions, environmental management is

deemed to be a multidisciplinary process for preventing and resolving environmental

issues through effective research, planning, monitoring and action. The process

involves identifying goals and establishing the means to achieve them; it can vary in

scale both temporally and spatially.

There are many drivers behind the take-up of environmental management (Barrow

1999). Industries, organisations and businesses are being put under increasing

pressure to adopt new tools to manage their environmental impacts (Zutshi and

Sohal 2004). Pressures come from government, media, individuals and companies

(Barrow 1999). Other motivations include the necessity to comply with legislation,

the opportunity for financial savings and the opportunity to improve reputation

(Barrow 1999).

Many barriers to the adoption of environmental management also exist. One of the

main hurdles often quoted is the financial implications of implementation; Buchholz

(1998 p343) stated that �if any one company in a given industry chooses to clean up

its environmental problems, it will place itself at a competitive disadvantage, because

those costs will have to be reflected somewhere, most likely in the price of its

products.� Other barriers include time constraints, lack of guidance, inadequate

data, gaps in knowledge, and social attitudes (Barrow 1999).

Various environmental management tools are in existence. Tools first started to

emerge in the late 1960�s and have grown in number and variety since then (Barrow

1999). Examples include cost-benefit analysis (CBA), environmental impact

assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental

auditing.

One of the most common environmental management tools is the Environmental

Management System (EMS). An EMS is �a structured framework for managing an

organisation�s significant environmental impacts� (Brady 2005 p106). It documents





3

�how an organisation intends to manage its potential impacts on the environment and

related aspects of its operation� (Andrews et al. 1999 p4). The main aim of an EMS

is to achieve continual improvement of environmental performance and of the EMS

(Brady 2005).

Development of an EMS usually involves posing and answering four basic questions

from an environmental perspective (Cleaver 2001; Brady 2005; Alemagi et al. 2006):

1. What is the current situation?

o Involves collecting baseline data, identifying environmental

aspects and impacts and assessing their significance.

2. Where do we want to be?

o Involves setting goals and targets and producing an environmental

policy.

3. How do we get there?

o Involves identifying procedures and drawing up a plan.

4. Are we there yet?

o Involves monitoring, inspections and review audits

The cost of developing and implementing an EMS is highly variable and can be hard

to assess (Cleaver 2001). Costs can vary depending on a number of variables,

including the complexity of the system in question (Cleaver 2001). Benefits of EMS

can also be hard to quantify and can vary between organisations, but are often

quoted as improved environmental performance and reputation, financial savings and

legislative compliance (e.g. Cleaver 2001; Sheldon and Yoxon 2006).

A broad range of EMSs have been adopted worldwide (Steger 2000). Systems can

be developed �in-house� or can follow certified standards. In-house systems include

industry-specific EMSs, for example, the �Responsible Care Program� in the chemical

industry and company-specific EMSs, i.e. systems that have been derived to

specifically meet a company�s needs (Steger 2000).





4

The most common certified standards are ISO 14001 and the Eco-management and

Audit Scheme (EMAS) (Schaltegger et al. 2003). ISO 14001 was developed as an

international voluntary standard for EMS with the intent of offering businesses a

strategy for achieving sustainable development (Andrews et al. 1999). EMAS is a

European Union initiative aimed at improving an organisation�s environmental

performance (Brady 2005). BS 8555 is also in common use; this British standard

aims to provide guidance to any organisation on the phased implementation,

maintenance and improvement of an EMS (BSI Group 2007a).

There is currently a lack of statistics on the uptake of EMSs worldwide. Data are

available however on the number of certified EMSs in use; this can be used as an

indication of EMS uptake. The ISO Survey (2005) showed that between December

2001 and December 2005, the number of ISO 14001 certificates grew from 36 464 to

111 162 certificates worldwide. Although it is thought that many more non-certified,

unrecorded EMSs may exist, this data still demonstrates the rapid expansion of EMS

use currently occurring worldwide.

EMSs can be relevant to a wide range of organisations, including all industry sectors

ranging from small to large and from high- to low-impact organisations (BSI Group

2007c). Initially the use of EMS tended to be concentrated in large, high impact

industrial organisations; more recently however its use seems to be spreading into

other areas, for example, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (e.g. Starkey

2000; Williams et al. 2000; Hillary 2004) and Higher Education Institutes (e.g. Barnes

and Jerman 2002; Viebahn 2002; Savely et al. 2007). The use of EMSs in the sports

industry is currently minimal (Chernushenko 2006).

1.2.2 Sport and the Environment

1.2.2.1 Environmental Impacts in Sport

Whenever a person engages in sport there is an impact on the environment (UNEP

2004). These impacts can be positive or negative, can vary in scale and magnitude

and can be either direct or indirect (International Olympic Committee 1997). The





5

most common ways in which sport can affect the environment include (UNEP 2004;

Chernushenko 2006):

Habitat destruction

Consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources

Pollution

o Air

o Water

o Soil

o Noise

o Light

Soil erosion

Waste generation

Longer-term impacts, such as climate change and ozone layer depletion have also

been identified (Chernushenko 2006).

Most sports do not cause large-scale, high impact degradation (Chernushenko

2006). Sport, however, is enjoyed by a large proportion of the population; in 2002 it

was found that 75% of adults had taken part in a sporting activity that previous year

(National Statistics 2002). The environmental impact of sport can therefore be

likened to the effect of SMEs which are thought to only cause a small environmental

impact individually, but cumulatively could account for up to 70% of all industrial

pollution (Hillary 2004) and produce 60% of all commercial waste (Netregs 2003).

A sports event can be described as an organised gathering of sportspeople and

their supporters to participate in sports activities; such events have the potential to

affect the environmental impacts caused by a particular sport by adding a number of

additional aspects. Firstly, sports events generally involve a large increase in the

number of people in a particular area, over a short time period; secondly, events

produce an increase in sports activities in a particular area, over a short time period;

and thirdly, events can cause indirect environmental impacts which are often likened

to those caused by tourism (International Olympic Committee 1997).





6

Sports events can constitute a tourist attraction by enticing visitors to an area

(International Olympic Committee 1997). These visitors spend their money in the

area creating wealth and employment. A good example of a sports event as a tourist

attraction is the Euro 1996 Football Championships; it attracted 280 000 overseas

visitors to the UK, and these visitors spent approximately £120 million in the eight

host cities and surrounding areas during their stay (Dobson et al. 1997).

The environment impacts caused by sporting events seem to be dependent on a

number of variables; these include the sport involved, the scale of event, the location

of the event and the timing of the event.

Different sports can cause different environmental impacts depending on the

activities they involve and the environments they use. Golf, for example, is often

criticised for its use of large areas of land and its alteration of natural environments.

Swimming pools are criticised for their high energy use and their use of chemicals.

Road races have been criticised for causing traffic congestion, which can cause

annoyance to local residents and produce air pollution (Chernushenko 2006).

Events can involve one sport (e.g. a football match) or can be multi-sport events (e.g.

the Olympic Games); it seems likely that this will also affect the level of

environmental impacts caused and could lead to an accumulation of environmental

damage (Chernushenko 2006).

Sports events can vary in scale; they can be local, regional, national or global and

can attract a varying number of competitors and supporters from the local area or

from across the world. Past research and public attention has tended to focus on

large-scale sports events, with little attention being paid to smaller-scale, local events

(International Olympic Committee 1997). Larger events tend to produce more visible

and obvious impacts, however smaller events, often occurring on a more regular

basis and involving a larger number of people over time are also likely to have

negative environmental impacts (International Olympic Committee 1997).

The impact of tourism associated with sports events highlights the importance of the

scale of an event; it has been suggested that short-term mega-events, such as the





7

Olympic Games, tend to have long-term negative consequences for the host city

compared to regular seasonal competitions or smaller-scale, local or regional events

where the potential for negative impact is much less (Higham 1999). It is argued that

areas hosting smaller, regular events are less likely to require displacement of local

residents and are less likely to suffer from over-crowding, infrastructure problems and

security issues associated with increased visitors to the area (Higham 1999).

It appears that the choice of location for a sports event can have a major effect on

the environmental impacts caused. Sport can be enhanced by taking place in rural

areas as the countryside provides pleasant surroundings for the activity; such areas

however tend to be more vulnerable to environmental damage and are less able to

absorb visitor requirements (Tribe et al. 2000). A chosen location needs to provide

services such as car parking, toilets and catering facilities to allow people to

participate in activities, these are more likely to be available in urban settings (Tribe

et al. 2000).

The timing and timescale of a sports event are important considerations when

assessing its environmental impact. Sports events can vary in duration from hours to

weeks; this is likely to affect the environmental impacts caused. The time of year in

which an event takes place can also affect its environmental impact. In respect of

trekking, for example, it has been shown that the season can greatly affect the type

and level of impacts caused by an expedition (Kuniyal 2002).

The environmental impacts caused by sport tend to receive much less attention and

tend to be perceived as much less significant compared to other industries and

businesses (Tribe et al. 2000). This may be due to the lack of laws and controls

attached to the sports industry or because the impacts caused by the sports industry

tend to be less apparent compared to other industries (Tribe et al. 2000).

Within the sports industry there also appears to be disproportionate coverage of

different sports and their environmental impacts; high-profile sports such as football,

rugby and tennis and events such as the Olympic Games seem to receive much

more attention compared to lesser-known sports such as badminton, netball and

squash. This can be demonstrated by looking at media coverage of different sports





8

and events; the homepage of the BBC Sport Website (2007), for example, provides

direct links to articles on high-profile sports such as football, rugby and tennis

whereas lesser-known sports such as badminton, netball and squash are combined

together and classified as �Other Sport� and are not given direct links to articles.

The environmental impacts of triathlon have received very little attention in the past

and hence are largely unknown; this project consequently aims to research into this

area and contribute to filling this gap in knowledge.

1.2.2.2 Environmental Management in Sport

Growing awareness and concern for environmental issues has put increasing

pressures and demands on the sports industry to reconsider the ways in which they

manage their events (Chernushenko 2006). As these pressures increase, and the

scope of sports management grows, there is a growing need for effective

management tools appropriate to the industry, and for guidance on how and why

organisations should take responsibility for their actions (Chernushenko 2006).

A variety of environmental management systems, standards, guidelines and charters

are currently in use in the sports industry in the UK.

The production of environmental guidelines appears to be a popular practice in the

sports industry. Many guidelines exist; the majority are aimed at particular sports

while a small number are aimed at particular events. Examples of sport-specific

guidelines can be seen in mountain biking (International Cycling Union 1999), skiing

(National Ski Areas Association 2005), motorcycling (International Motorcycling

Federation 2001) and towed water sports (International Water Ski Federation 2001)

and event-specific guidelines include the Greenpeace Olympic Environmental

Guidelines (2000). The UK Sport Practical Environmental Guidelines (2002) provide

a good example of some general guidelines for sports events. There are still many

sports and events that do not have their own specific guidelines.





9

Guidelines are voluntary and are therefore only followed by those who choose to.

Sharpley (1996) quoted that the major drawback of guidelines is that �the degree to

which they are adhered to is totally dependent on the willingness of individuals�

(p280). Although a large number of guideline documents exist, this does not

necessarily indicate their usage; no data has been found with regards to their

following or their success at meeting their aims.

Another environmental management tool which seems to be popular in the sports

industry is the concept of an �Ecological Footprint�. Andrea Collin and colleagues at

the University of Cardiff developed the idea as a way of indicating the size of impact

a sports event has on the environment (Copley 2005). The tool involves converting

the energy and resources used at an event into the hypothetical area of land required

to support those resources (Copley 2005).

Collins has used this Ecological Footprint tool to calculate the environmental impact

of various events and compare their footprint to alternative scenarios or situations.

The 2004 FA Cup Final in Cardiff, for example, was found to have a footprint eight

times higher than if all the fans had stayed at home and watched the match on TV

(Bullock 2007).

Although the tool has been shown to be a useful way of aiding environmental

management, it has been criticised for being dependant on the assumptions that it is

based on, for example using land requirements for wind turbines to generate energy

would give a much smaller footprint than using forest cover to soak up CO2 (Copley

2005).

Ipswich Town Football Club (ITFC) used a similar approach to the �Ecological

Footprint� to calculate their �Carbon Footprint�. A CO2 Audit was conducted to

calculate their carbon footprint based on the energy used for the club�s activities. A

scheme was then set up to �offset� their carbon footprint by asking club supporters to

make pledges to reduce their energy use. Pledges could include a variety of

activities such as installing energy efficient light bulbs, or using the bus to get to

matches rather than car. The scheme proved very popular and helped ITFC become

the UK�s first carbon neutral football club (Ipswich Town Football Club 2007).





10

Guidance and advice on environmental management can be taken from past sports

events. Considerable literature is available, for example, on the Sydney 2000

Olympic Games, which provides us with an extremely good example of how effective

environmental management practices can be incorporated into the planning and

decision-making of an event (Chernushenko 2006).

There is currently a lack of data available on the use of EMSs in sport, however,

based on the limited evidence available, it appears that their use is minimal. Only a

small number of sports events have been identified as ISO 14001 certified, these

include the 2006 Turin Winter Olympic Games (European Commission 2007) and the

2008 Beijing Olympic Games (Olympic Movement 2007). A number of sports

facilities were also identified, including four skiing resorts (On Snow 2007) and eight

golf facilities (Committed to Green Foundation 2005). No evidence has been found

of the use of BS 8555 in the sports industry.

Similarly to ISO 14001, the use of EMAS in sport also seems to be limited. Only

twenty examples of its use were identified; these included the Nürburgring race

circuit in Germany, the 2006 Turin Winter Olympic Games, the Allianz Arena and the

Franken Stadium in Germany (venues used as part of the 2006 FA World Cup), and

a number of nautical sports organisations (European Commission 2007).

The majority of identified examples of use of EMAS and ISO 14001 in sport were for

large-scale events or facilities. No research into the suitability of EMAS and ISO

14001 for smaller-scale events has been found. Both EMAS and ISO 14001 are

regarded by their creators as relevant to the sports industry and to SMEs; it could

therefore be assumed that they are also suitable for smaller-scale sports events;

there are, however a number of indicators suggesting otherwise:

(i) Lack of evidence of the use of ISO 14001 and EMAS for small-scale

sports events.

(ii) Critics of ISO 14001 and EMAS argue that the standards are too complex

for SMEs and suggest that more appropriate alternatives are needed

(Gerstenfeld and Roberts 2000); based on this, it could be suggested that





11

EMAS and ISO 14001 would not be suitable for small-scale sports

events.

(iii) The Committed to Green Foundation (CTG) consider the standards as

too complex, bureaucratic and costly for golf clubs and hence developed

a new EMS. This EMS was closely modelled on EMAS however based

at a level that was thought to be more appropriate for the clubs

(Chernushenko 2006). The uptake of the CTG EMS is thought to be

good with 25 fully certified sites worldwide and many hundreds more

participating either directly in the scheme or via some form of national

adaptation (Committed to Green Foundation 2005). This suggests that

although ISO 14001 and EMAS may not be suitable for smaller-scale

sports events, the use of EMSs can be successful if designed to be

appropriate to the situation involved. Despite the seeming success of the

CTG EMS, no similar standards for other sports are known to exist.

BS 8555 makes particular reference to SMEs and states that it is applicable to all

organisations, regardless of their line of business (BSI Group 2007c); this could

suggest that the standard may be more appropriate to small-scale sports events,

compared to ISO 14001 and EMAS. The lack of evidence of its use, however,

suggests that this is not the case.

BS 8901:2007 (Sustainable Event Management System) has been put forward by the

BSI; although it is still in the development stage. The standard has been designed

to provide requirements for planning and managing all types of sustainable events

(BSI Group 2007b). The suitability and effectiveness of BS 8901 in the sports

industry is currently unknown. Based on information given by the BSI, the standard

appears to be applicable to sports events, however, despite still being in draft form, it

has already been criticised for its �lengthy administrative processes and strict supply

chain controls� (Roythorne 2007) and has been described as �impractical and

unworkable� (Downie 2007). The success, or otherwise, of this standard will need to

be assessed, if, and when it comes in to use.





12

It seems vital that every sport examines its own situation, activities and impacts in

order to implement the most relevant and effective environmental management

practices. Despite the current availability of environmental management tools and

guidance, due to the wide range of sporting activities participated in across the world

and the wide range of impacts they cause, many sports are without guidance and

hence more tools still need to be developed. Triathlon is one of the sports that does

not have any specific tools or guidance available to it; this project will therefore focus

on this sport.

1.2.3 Triathlon and the Environment

Triathlon is a relatively new sport but has grown rapidly over the past few years

especially since its debut in the 2000 Sydney Olympics (British Triathlon 2007a).

This growth can be demonstrated by the recent growth in triathlon clubs and events

in the UK. Membership levels of the Tri-Anglia Triathlon Club, for example, have

increased from 53 to 197 members over the past two years (Davis 2007b) and

competitor numbers in the annual Norwich Triathlon have increased from 90 in July

2004 to almost 300 in July 2007 (Catchpole 2007).

It would seem likely that as the sport of triathlon grows, the impacts it has on the

environment are also likely to expand; a proactive approach is therefore needed to

identify the most appropriate and effective methods for managing these impacts.

No formal research has yet been conducted on the potential environmental impacts

caused by triathlon. Triathlons can occur in a variety of different formats and can vary

in length, in the size of area covered, in the number of competitors, spectators and

staff attending, in their location, duration and occurrence. As seen with other sports

events, it would seem likely that these variables will affect the scale and magnitude of

any environmental impacts caused.

The potential environmental impacts of triathlon have been predicted and are shown

in Table 1; the table was developed as follows:





13

Firstly, the activities involved with triathlon were identified from the British

Triathlon Event Organisers Guide (British Triathlon 2007c) and an article

in July 2007 edition of 220 Magazine (Lidbury 2007).

Secondly, the potential environmental impacts of these activities were

predicted based on comparisons of triathlon with the impacts caused by:

(i) Other sports with similarities to triathlon, including towed water

sports (International Water Ski Federation 2001), mountain biking

(International Motorcycling Federation 2001), road racing

(Chernushenko 2006) and adventure racing (Canadian Adventure

Racing Association 2006; United States Adventure Racing

Association 2006).

(ii) Other sports events, including the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games

(Chernushenko 2006), the Turin 2006 Winter Olympic Games

(European Commission 2007) and the Beijing 2008 Olympic

Games (Olympic Movement 2007).

(iii) Tourism (Higham 1999).

Thirdly, the variables likely to effect the level of these impacts were

considered; this was based on past research of the environmental

impacts of sport and sports events (International Olympic Committee

1997; Higham 1999; Tribe et al. 2000; Kuniyal 2002; Chernushenko

2006).

Fourthly, the table was organised into six key area; these categories

were identified from the UK Sport Practical Environmental Guidelines

(2002) as key areas in environmental management for any sports event.





14

Finally, an addition category was added to the table to include the

potential cumulative impacts of triathlons combined with other events (as

highlighted by Chernushenko (2006)).

TABLE 1: The predicted potential environmental impacts of triathlon

KEY AREA ACTIVITIES IMPACTS VARIABLES LIKELY TO

EFFECT LEVEL OF IMPACTS

Biodiversity, Landscape and Cultural Heritage

Use of land for event facilities (including race headquarters, toilets, showers, changing facilities and catering facilities).

Use of local area for race (including water body, roads, paths and tracks and an area for transition).

Entry and exit of water.

Placement of buoys/ markers in water.

Placement of signage around route.

Marshalling. Spectating. Car parking.

Damage of water banks, shorelines, tracks, paths and roadsides.

Disturbance of local wildlife.

Habitat damage and destruction.

Damage to areas of cultural or archaeological importance.

Visual intrusion.

Traffic congestion.

Permanent facilities available at event location.

Type and number of temporary facilities used at event.

Environment in which event is held (e.g. urban or rural).

Types of roads, paths and tracks used (e.g. on- or off-road, surface, width).

Presence of significant or rare species of plants, animals, reptiles or insects.

Presence of any areas designated as protected by national or local authorities.

Presence of any areas of cultural or archaeological important.

Nature of environment surrounding event.

Areas used for car parking (e.g. surfaced car parks, un-surfaced car parks, and road sides).

Production of Pollution

Use of transport (including safety boats, fleet vehicles, pace setters, first aid support and travel to and

Air pollution. Water

contamination. Soil

contamination. Noise pollution.

Types of vehicles used to run event (e.g. boats, fleet vehicles, pacesetters and first-aid support).

Number of vehicles used for running event





15

from event by competitors, spectators, staff and volunteers).

and their usage (including distances covered and fuel used).

Number of additional vehicles in area as a result of event (including staff, competitor and spectator vehicles).

Use of noise generating equipment including PA systems, loud speakers, generators and vehicles.

Noise pollution. Level of usage of any noise generating equipment.

Use of chemicals or hazardous substances (e.g. petrol, diesel, oil, lubricants, cleaning products).

Water contamination.

Soil contamination.

Types of chemicals or hazardous substances used.

Usage of chemicals or hazardous substances.

Procedures in place to prevent and respond to spillages of chemicals or hazardous substances.

Water Use Use of water and production of waste water through: Consumption Use of toilets Personal

hygiene Cleaning Catering

Depletion of water resources.

Source of water used (e.g. mains supply, borehole, direct pumping from river or stream, recycled or reused water).

Uses of water Amount of water used. Amount of waste water

produced and how it is managed.

Waste Production

Production of solid waste through: Use of drinks

stations. Catering. Littering. Use of race

numbers. Distribution of

race information.

Adding to waste stream going to landfill.

Water contamination.

Soil contamination.

Methods used to collect waste (e.g. in public bins, in bins provided by event organisers, litter pick).

Methods used to remove waste from site (e.g. by event organisers, contractors, site owner





16

or Local Authority). Waste disposal

methods (e.g. land-filled, reused, recycled, incinerated, or composted).

Measures taken to reduce the amount of waste produced.

Energy Use Use of energy (e.g. electricity, gas, oil, diesel, battery, renewable) for: Loud speakers Clock Lighting Computer

systems Catering

equipment

Depletion of raw materials.

Types of energy used. Usage of energy

(including what for and duration).

Amount of energy used.

Purchasing Purchase/ hire of equipment including: Fencing Barriers Racking Toilets Marquees Timing systems T-shirts Race numbers Signage

Depletion of raw materials.

Adding to waste stream going to landfill.

Considerations made when making purchasing decisions (e.g. price, performance quality, durability, energy efficiency, location of supplier, supplier service, delivery method, environmental reputation of supplier, materials used to produce product, availability of spare parts, amount of packaging, disposability, potential for reuse or recycling).

Cumulative Impacts

All of above combined with additional activities of other events.

Accumulation of all of the above along with impacts caused by other events.

How often the triathlon is held at location.

Number, type and timing of other events held at the same location as triathlon.

Number and type of other events taking place at the same time as the triathlon in the local area.





17

Although it is possible to predict the potential environmental impacts caused by

triathlon, there is still a lack of research into the actual impacts caused; subsequently

it is concluded that more research is needed in this area. This project therefore aims

to conduct research into the environmental impacts of triathlon and contribute to

filling this gap in current research.

Little evidence of the environmental management practices currently used in triathlon

has been identified. Only one example of the use of a certified EMS in triathlon has

been identified. The Madrid Triathlon World Cup gained ISO 14001 certification in

2004 (Triathlon.org 2004); there is very limited information available however on the

details of this EMS and the success or otherwise of this system.

The lack of evidence of the use of environmental management in triathlon could

simply be due to a lack of research into this subject; however, it could also suggest

that little environmental management currently takes place. The use of

environmental management in triathlon may be lacking for a number of reasons; the

main barriers to environmental management (as shown by Barrow (1999)) have

been considered in respect to triathlon:

Financial implications

Triathlon is often seen as an expensive sport with entry fees for events frequently

criticised for being too high. Entry into the 2007 Michelob Ultra London Triathlon, the

worlds largest triathlon, cost £74 and entry to the 2007 Ironman UK event cost £240.

An article in the July 2007 edition of 220 Triathlon magazine defends these prices

stating that the nature of triathlons makes them extremely costly events (Lidbury

2007). It is suggested that event organisers may be reluctant to implement

environmental management measures as they may be viewed as an additional cost

they can do without.

Time constraints

Organising a triathlon can be a very time-consuming process. Nick Rusling, Director

of the Michelob Ultra London Triathlon, estimated that it takes at least a year for an

event to be planned, organised and run (Lidbury 2007) and Kerry Davis, Committee

Member of Tri-Anglia Triathlon Club, stated that planning for the Norwich Triathlon





18

generally starts about eight months in advance of the event (Davis 2007a). It is

suggested that event organisers may feel they do not have enough time to implement

environmental management.

Not considered necessary

Event organisers may not consider environmental management to be necessary

within triathlon; they may not consider environmental management to be relevant to

triathlon, or they may lack concern for, or have antipathy towards the subject of

environmental management. If it is not considered necessary then it is unlikely that

environmental management would be implemented.

Lack of guidance

No specific environmental management tools, standards or guidance have been

identified for use in triathlon. Various guideline documents are available for sports

with similarities to triathlon, (e.g. adventure racing (Canadian Adventure Racing

Association 2006; United States Adventure Racing Association 2006) however, due

to the unique nature of triathlon it is thought that these can only be of limited use to

triathlon and that specific environmental management tools would be more

appropriate and effective. It is suggested that this lack of guidance may be hindering

event organisers from implementing environmental management into their events.

The British Triathlon Federation (BTF), the National Governing Body for triathlon in

the UK, has published an Event Organisers Guide (2007a); this document provides

basic advice on organising a triathlon however it fails to consider any potential

impacts an event may have on the environment or any environmental management

techniques that could be employed.

It is thought that this current lack of guidance is likely to affect the environmental

awareness of event organisers and that this is likely to affect the environmental

management measures they employ. There is currently a lack of information

available on the environmental awareness of triathlon event organisers; further

research is therefore needed in this area.





19

Due to the lack of evidence of environmental management in triathlon and the lack of

environmental management tools and guidance currently available, it is consequently

concluded that more research is needed in this area. This project aims to investigate

current environmental management practices used in triathlon, to assess the

necessity of environmental management in triathlon and to make recommendations

on the most appropriate environmental management measures that could be

employed when planning and organising triathlons in the future.





20

CHAPTER 2: Aims and Methodology

2.1 AIMS

This section gives the aims of this project:

(i) To identify the main environmental impacts caused by triathlon.

(ii) To assess the current environmental awareness of triathlon event

organisers.

(iii) To investigate environmental management practices currently used in

triathlon.

(iv) To determine the necessity for environmental management within

triathlon.

(v) To make recommendations on the most appropriate environmental

management measures that could be used when planning and organising

triathlons.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

This section describes the methods used to meet the aims of this project, explains

the reasoning behind their choice and discusses their limitations.

The methods used were:

Literature review

Questionnaire survey

Supplementary interview





21

Due to the timescale and scope of this project it was not feasible to collect field data

on the actual environmental impacts of triathlon. All research was therefore based

purely on the perceptions of those involved with organising triathlons.

It was also not feasible for this project to target all triathlons given the time and

financial constraints associated with it. This project therefore focused solely on open

water triathlons as, based on research of other sports, these were deemed to have

the potential to cause more environmental impacts compared to pool-based events.

Open water triathlons account for 33% of all triathlons held in the UK. This project

also focuses solely on triathlons in the UK.

2.2.1 Literature Review

A review of current literature was undertaken in order to gain a greater understanding

of the environmental impacts caused by triathlon and the environmental management

currently in use. The literature review helped to identify gaps in current research

which were used to develop the research aims for this project.

Due to the lack of previous research in this area, the literature review examined a

variety of areas in order to identify similarities and draw comparisons to triathlon.

The project reviewed literature on:

(i) The environmental impacts caused by a range of sports.

(ii) General environmental management practices used in industry.

(iii) Environmental management practices currently used in the sports

industry, including practices used in sports other than triathlon.





22

2.2.2 Questionnaire Survey

A questionnaire survey was chosen as the main method for fulfilling the aims of this

project, as it is one of the most convenient methods for targeting large numbers of

people in a timely and cost-effective manner (Bryman 2001; Robson 2002).

A direct survey method was deemed appropriate given the specific nature of the aims

of this project. A self-administered questionnaire was thought to be more appropriate

than interviews given the projects� timescale (Bryman 2001).

The target population of open water triathlon event organisers was made up of 72

individuals, this was considered manageable given the time and financial constraints

of this project; no sampling was therefore necessary. The contact details for each

event organiser were compiled from information available on the BTF website (British

Triathlon 2007b).

2.2.2.1 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was designed to meet the aims of this project as follows:

Aim 1: to identify the main environmental impacts caused by triathlon.

Questions were designed to identify event organiser�s perceptions of the level of

environmental impacts caused by triathlon and to assess the variables likely to affect

the level of potential environmental impacts caused by triathlon (as identified in Table

1).

Aim 2: to assess the current environmental awareness of triathlon event organisers

Questions were designed to assess indicators of environmental awareness; these

were:

Use of an environmental PPP (as used by Merritt (1998) to analyse

awareness of SME�s in the London Borough of Croydon).





23

Knowledge of environmental legislation relevant to event (as used by

Smith et al. (2000) to analyse the level of awareness of managers of

SME�s and by Gerrans and Hutchinson (2000) to assess the

environmental awareness of Australian SME�s).

Guidance, advice and training received on environmental issues relating

to event (often used as a means of raising environmental awareness in

business, e.g. Gerstenfeld and Roberts (2000), Walley (2000) and Wells

(1997)).

Knowledge of EMSs and certified EMSs (as used by Gerrans and

Hutchinson (2000) to assess the environmental awareness of Australian

SME�s and by Merritt (1998) to analyse awareness of SME�s in the

London Borough of Croydon).

Aim 3: to investigate environmental management practices currently used in triathlon

An open-question was used to allow respondents to describe the considerations they

currently give to the environment freely. The question was divided into the seven key

areas identified in Table 1.

Aim 4: to determine the necessity for environmental management within triathlon

An open-question was used to allow respondents to submit their opinions freely.

Aim 5: to make recommendations on the most appropriate environmental


The first question in this section was designed to identify the mains barriers currently

hindering event organisers from adopting environmental management, as any

recommendations made for the future would need to overcome these barriers in

order to be successful. The question was based on the barriers identified in Section

1.2.3. The second question was designed to identify what event organisers

perceived to be the most appropriate environmental management practices for use in

triathlon in the future.





24

The questionnaire was designed using guidance from current literature. The

questions were designed to be clear and straightforward, were written using

conventional language, avoided the use of imprecise and ambiguous terms, and

were unbiased. Each question was carefully examined to ensure it was purposeful

and related to the aims of this project (Fink 2003a).

A mixture of open- and closed-questions was used to ensure that a range of data

was obtained. Open-questions were used to allow respondents to express their

opinions freely, however such questions can be difficult to answer (Oppenheim 1992)

and results to such questions can be difficult to interpret and analyse (Fink 2003a);

closed questions were therefore also used. An �Other (please specify)� option was

added to most closed-questions in case respondents thoughts were not covered by

the alternatives given.

A lack of questionnaire responses was a major concern for this project. The

questionnaire were therefore designed to maximise response rates as follows

(Oppenheim 1992; Bryman 2001; Fink 2003a, b):

The length of the questionnaire was limited so it was manageable and

could be completed in a reasonable time.

The layout, spacing, printing and use of graphics were carefully

considered in order to make answering the questionnaire more attractive.

An accompanying letter was provided with the questionnaire to explain its

need.

Clear instructions were designed to accompany the questionnaire to ease

completion.

The confidentiality of respondents and their answers was highlighted.





25

A pilot survey was carried out to ensure questions and instructions were

effective, clear and straightforward. The pilot involved sending

questionnaires out to all committee members of the Tri-Anglia Triathlon

Club that had been involved in organising an event in the past twelve

months and asking for their opinions on its ease of completion. No major

changes were required as a result of the pilot survey, a number of small

amendments, however, were made.

Envelopes were addressed to respondents personally wherever possible.

A response date was put on the questionnaire to express urgency.

A stamped-addressed-envelope was provided with questionnaires to

ease return.

Reminders were sent to �non-returners� to encourage response. Timing

of reminders was based on the rate of returns.

A summary of results on completion of this project was offered to

respondents as a small incentive for returning their questionnaire.

An example of the questionnaire can be seen in Appendix 1.

2.2.2.2 Questionnaire Analysis

All responses were recorded in a spreadsheet using Microsoft Excel; this brought all

the data received in to one place making analysis more straightforward.

The majority of data produced from the closed-questions was either nominal or

ordinal; percentages, proportions and ranges were therefore used to describe these

results (Fink 2003a). Results were reported using descriptive text, lists and charts.





26

The qualitative data received from the open-questions was subject to an inductive

content analysis; this involved reviewing the data and identifying the dominant

themes and sub-themes within it (Oppenheim 1992).

The questionnaire responses provided baseline data against which the

environmental impacts of triathlon, the environmental awareness of event organisers

and the current environmental management practices were assessed. This data

then provided the basis for making recommendations on the most appropriate

environmental management measures for triathlon in the future.

2.2.2.3 Limitations

Survey Administration

Due to difficulties obtaining contact details for event organisers, a mixture of postal

and electronic mail was used to distribute the questionnaires. It is thought that this

difference may have affected response rates; the response rate from emailed

questionnaires (33%) was considerably higher compared with that from postal

questionnaires (24%).

Where postal questionnaires were used and respondents replied by hand, analysis of

the results was hindered by poor handwriting; illegible answers could not be

analysed. This was not an issue with emailed questionnaires as results were

returned in type. Ideally all questionnaires would have been conducted via email.

When using mailed questionnaires, you cannot be sure that the targeted person is

the respondent, for example the task may have been delegated to someone else; this

is likely to effect the responses received (Bryman 2001). To overcome this issue, the

questionnaires could have been administered by telephone (Bryman 2001); this

however was not realistic given the size of the target population and the time

available.

The use of self-administered questionnaires meant that there was no-one present to

help the respondents if they were unclear of what was being asked of them or if they





27

were having difficulties answering a question; this could have led to questions only

being partially answered or missed out completely (Bryman 2001). Questions were

designed to be clear and straightforward to try and minimise the need for

respondents to require assistance (Bryman 2001).

Non Response Bias

Low response rates and consequent biases are a particular problem when using

questionnaire surveys (Oppenheim 1992). It seemed probable that questionnaire

responses were more likely to come from those with a proactive interest in the

environment rather than those without, thus non response bias needed to be

considered when analysing results.

Socio-demographic checks were undertaken to check how well the sample of returns

represented the target population; checks covered event locations, event dates,

organising bodies, race distances and number of competitors and staff.

Statistical weighting of over- and under-represented groups within the sample of

returns was considered, however, as such amendments would have made the

sample unrepresentative in other aspects this option was rejected. Also, such

statistical weightings would be based on the assumption that socio-demographics

effected the responses and it is unknown whether or not this is the case; a bias within

the demographics would not necessarily produce a bias in the opinions given in the

survey (Oppenheim 1992).

Item Non Response Bias

A number of limitations were identified in the way respondents answered (or did not

answer) certain questions. There were questions that were not answered, or only

partially answered by some respondents and answers that did not make sense or

were irrelevant and as such had to be ignored; this had the potential to produce an

item non response bias within the results (Fink 2003a).

Closed-questions generally received a better response rate than open-questions.

Replies to open-questions tended to be either non-existent or very brief and unclear.





28

Reasoning behind the variety of response rates received for different questions was

considered. Respondent may have considered certain questions as too sensitive or

embarrassing to answer; they may have thought that questions were too difficult to

answer or that they were irrelevant or they may simply have had no opinion on the

subject. Questionnaire design and wording must also be considered as a limitation

here, respondents may not have been clear what certain questions were asking them

or may not have been provided with ample room to write their reply.

A number of measures were taken to minimise the possibility of item non response

bias; questions were designed to be plainly-worded, straightforward and non-

judgemental and the confidentiality and anonymity of all answers was guaranteed

(Oppenheim 1992).

Social Desirability Bias

The possibility of respondents understating or overstating their actions or ideas for

fear of looking �un-environmental� needed to be considered.

There were numerous examples of respondents ticking more boxes than requested.

This could be an indication of respondents overstating their answers or being too

eager to please (Oppenheim 1992). This could also be an issue with the

questionnaire design with instructions not being made clear enough.

Measures taken to minimise social desirability bias included using self-administered

questionnaires rather than face-to-face methods and emphasising the confidentiality

and anonymity of answers (Oppenheim 1992).

2.2.3 Supplementary Interview

A supplementary interview was carried out with the BTF to assess the environmental

awareness of its members, to assess the level of support and information given to

event organisers by the BTF, and to obtain opinions on suitable environmental

management applicable to the sport.





29

The BTF is the national governing body for the sport of triathlon in Great Britain. The

interview was conducted with Norman Brook, the Chief Executive Officer of the

organisation. Norman�s comments and opinions were recorded and analysed, with

his permission, as a supplement to the questionnaire survey results.

An interview was used, rather than a questionnaire, as it provided more flexibility and

allowed greater freedom in the sequencing of questions, the wording of questions

and the amount of time given to each question (Robson 2002). It also allowed

prompts and probes to be used (Robson 2002).

Guidance was taken from current literature when planning the interview to ensure it

was effective (e.g. Breakwell 1990; Bryman 2001; Robson 2002; Fink 2003a). An

unstructured interview format was chosen as it allowed the conversation to develop

around the main topics and issues and allowed unexpected or unanticipated answers

to emerge (Robson 2002). A list of topics and issues to be covered in the interview

was prepared in advance.

2.2.3.1 Limitations

The interview only gave the opinion of one person and cannot be taken as the views

of the BTF and its members as a whole. Ideally more interviews would have been

conducted with a variety of people from various organisations however due to

difficulties contacting potential interviewees and getting them to commit to an

interview this was not possible.

Unfortunately the interview was conducted via telephone rather than face-to-face;

this was at the choice of the BTF. Although the use of a telephone was the more

cost- and time-effective option, and reduced the possibility of bias caused by the

interviewee�s responses being affected by presence or the characteristics of the

interviewer (Bryman 2001), ideally the interview would have been conducted face-to-

face as this would have allowed more observations to be made, for example, of the

facial expressions and body language of the interviewee (Bryman 2001).





30

CHAPTER 3: Results and Discussion

This chapter provides a summary of the questionnaire survey respondents; it

presents the findings of the questionnaire survey and supplementary interview; and it

looks at trends and patterns found within the data collected and discusses these in

relation to the findings of the literature review.

3.1 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS

Out of the 72 questionnaires sent out, a total of 20 positive responses were received;

this gave a response rate of 28%. A further eight responses (11%) were received

with apologies for non-completion due to cancellation of events, lack of time or

because respondents did not feel they were able to answer the questions. The

completed questionnaires came from a cross-section of event organisers and

covered a range of events.

Responses came from a variety of locations; sixteen responses were received from

England (80%) and four from Scotland (20%). Responses from Scotland were over-

represented in the sample of returns. No responses were received from Wales

despite 5% of the target events taking place there.

All the respondents� events were held between April and October, with the most

popular months being June (22%) and July (28%). This provided a good

representation of the target population.

Just over half of the responses were regarding events organised by triathlon clubs

(55%), eight were organised by a company (40%) and one was organised by a Local

Authority (5%). This split provided a good representation of the target population

(triathlon club (52%), company (44%), other (4%)).

Almost half of responses came from organisers of sprint distance events (45%), just

over a third came from standard distance events (35%) and the remainder came from

middle distance events (10%) and from organisers who arranged a variety of events





31

(10%). No responses were received from long, super sprint or novice event

organisers. This sample did not give a fair representative of the whole population;

sprint distance events were over-represented whereas long, super sprint and novice

events were under-represented.

Responses came from a variety of different sized events; competitor numbers varied

from 80 to 1000; based on this the sample of returns under-represented large events.

The number of paid staff involved with event organisation varied from zero to 20.

Just over half of the responding organisations could be classed as micro-enterprises

(55%) and just under half could be classed as small-enterprises (45%). It is unknown

whether or not this is representative of the target population.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRIATHLONS (AIM 1)


The facilities used at a triathlon are thought to affect the environmental impacts

caused by the event. A variety of facilities, both permanent and temporary, were

found to be used at triathlons in the UK (Figure 1). A race headquarters was present

at the majority of events with over two-thirds of them being temporary constructions;

such temporary facilities have the potential to cause damage to the environment

through their transportation, construction, placement and removal.

Toilets were present at all events and showering and changing facilities were present

at the majority of events; approximately two-thirds of these facilities were permanent

fixtures. Approximately half of catering facilities were permanent and half were

temporary.





32

FIGURE 1: Facilities available at triathlons

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Toilets

for s

pect

ators

Toilets

for c

ompe

titors

Race

head

quar

ters

Chang

ing fa

cilitie

s

Caterin

g

Shower

ing fa

cilitie

s

Facilities

Per

cen

tag

e o

f eve

nts

Event organisers must provide certain facilities for an event to run successfully,

however it is thought the resultant impacts of such facilities can vary depending on

their management. It seems likely that permanent facilities are generally managed

by site owners and once event organisers have selected their location have little say

over how facilities are run. On the other hand, more control is likely to be had over

the management of temporary facilities brought in by event organisers.

As identified from past research, the environment in which a triathlon is held is likely

to affect the level of environmental damage it causes. 40% of events surveyed took

place in completely rural areas and 35% of events took place in completely urban

environments. One-quarter of the events passed through a mixture of urban and

rural environments. Any environmental management employed would need to

consider the potential impacts of triathlon in both urban and rural environments.

Permanent Temporary Facilities not available Both Permanent and Temporary No answer given





33

70% of events included an off-road section; the majority of these followed existing

tracks or paths, however, two respondents said their events included sections that

were across grassed areas with no pre-existing paths (10%). The proportion of

routes that were off-road varied between events from about 5% to 100% of the route;

it would therefore be important to consider this when making suggestions on

environmental management.

The results of the interview with Norman Brook highlighted the potential of triathlons

to cause damage to roads and footpaths used for the event, although he felt that this

was not an issue as any damage caused was always rectified after the event.

Figure 2 shows that 25% of events were known to take place in designated or

protected areas, and 15% were known to take place in areas containing significant or

rare species. None of the events were known to take place in areas of cultural or

archaeological importance.

65% of respondents thought that their event had no impact or a balanced impact on

local wildlife; however, considering that half of respondents were unaware whether or

not any significant or rare species were present in the local area (Figure 2), the

accuracy of this finding is viewed with caution. 35% of respondents thought their

event had a slight negative impact on local wildlife.

Half of respondents considered their event to have no impact and half thought their

event had a positive impact on local cultural heritage; any environmental

management introduced in this area would therefore need to concentrate on

enhancing these benefits rather than minimising negative impacts.

The visual impact of triathlons was not perceived to be negative by the majority of

respondents (90%). Only 10% of respondents felt that their triathlon had a negative

impact on the visual aesthetics of the area.





34

FIGURE 2: Presence of significant or rare species, areas designated as

protected by national or local authorities and areas of cultural or

archaeological importance in the area covered by triathlons

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Significant or rarespecies of plants,

animals, reptiles orinsects

Areas designated asprotected by national or

local authorities

Areas of cultural orarchaeological

importance

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Res

po

nd

ents

The majority of events used permanent car parks for competitors, spectators and

organiser�s vehicles, almost one-third however used road sides for parking cars

(30%); this has the potential for causing traffic congestion as well as erosion of road

side banks and verges and disturbance to wildlife.


When asked for their opinion on the level of environmental impact caused by

pollution produced from their event, organisers gave a variety of responses (Figure

3). The following components were all perceived as being negatively impacted upon

by pollution caused by triathlon by at least 10% of respondents (in descending order):

Noise

Water

Present Not present Presence unknown No answer given





35

Air

Soil

Air was the only component that was thought to be strongly negatively impacted

upon by any of the respondents (5%). Noise was considered as negatively impacted

upon by the highest number of respondents (30%), however, it was also the only

component that was thought to be positively impacted upon by a respondent (5%).

None of the components were perceived as being negatively impacted upon by

pollution by more than one-third of respondents.

FIGURE 3: Event organiser�s perceptions of the level of environmental impact

caused by pollution produced by triathlons

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Noise Water Air SoilComponent of Environment

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Res

po

nd

ents

The vast majority of events involved the use of some form of vehicles (85%); only

three respondents said they did not use any vehicles (15%). A variety of different

vehicles were identified; boats and motorbikes were the most common. Other

motorised vehicles used included ambulances, cars, 4x4�s, vans, tractor, quad bikes

and mini buses. There were only two examples where non-motorised vehicles were

Strong positive impact Slight negative impact Slight positive impact Strong negative impact No / balanced impact No answer given





36

used, these were canoes and bicycles; the use of non-motorised vehicles can

minimise air and noise pollution and reduce the risk of water and soil contamination

as a result of spillage of fuels or oils.

The number of additional vehicles coming to the area as a result of events ranged

from 80 to 400 with a mean of 219. Due to comments made by a number of

respondents (30%) on the difficulty of making such estimates and the approximate

nature of their answers, these figures are not thought to be accurate and therefore

can only be used as an indication. The highest figure given was 400; this however is

thought to be a gross underestimation given that the competitor numbers at this

event were quoted as 1000.

60% of respondents thought that the use of transport involved with their event had a

negative impact on the environment, 30% felt that it had no impact and 10% felt that

it had a positive impact. The transport of competitors to and from events was

highlighted by a number of respondents as a particular area of concern. The

following comments were made:

�Cars are possibly the worst on pollution arriving and departing the

venue.�

�The major source of environmental damage from triathlon is the large

distances travelled by competitors to get to events in private cars.�

Triathlon is well-known as a �kit-heavy� sport (Lidbury 2007) with competitors needing

equipment for each of the three disciplines; it is thought that this can often make

travelling to events in personal cars the most convenient and appealing option over

public transport and shared lifts.

85% of respondents said they used some noise-generating equipment; PA systems

were the most commonly cited, used at 60% of event. Generators, loudspeakers,

and megaphone were also cited.





37

The vast majority of respondents stated that they did not use any chemicals or

hazardous substances at their event (75%). This is surprising considering that the

vast majority of respondent (85%) stated that some form of motorised vehicle was

used during their events; this suggests a lack of recognition that fuels, oils and

lubricant can all pose a potential hazard to the environment and have the potential to

cause soil and water contamination in the case of accidents or spillages.

Two respondents made comments about the use of spray paint for marking the

ground. One respondent had received a complaint after doing so, and the other had

been asked in advance not to do so by the site manager. The use of spray paints

can potentially cause soil or water pollution and can be visually displeasing.

Water Use

35% of respondents thought that the water use at their event had a slight negative

impact on the environment; no respondents thought that it had a strong negative

impact. The majority of respondents thought that their water use had no impact on

the environment (60%) with one respondent stating that it had a slight positive impact

(5%).

95% of event organisers sourced their water from the mains supply; only one

respondent said otherwise, stating water was sourced from a borehole.

Consumption, toilets and personal hygiene were all stated as main uses of water. As

shown by Tribe et al. (2000), it is necessary for event organisers to provide certain

facilities at events in order for it to run successfully; toilets, showers and catering

facilities are all considered necessary facilities at triathlons. Any environmental

management measures suggested for the future may therefore be more successful

at improving efficiency of current water uses rather than trying to cut down on the

uses.

The amount of water used at an event was unknown by all respondents. It is thought

that if the amount and hence the cost of water used at an event was known, this may

provide event organisers with an incentive to reduced the amount used.





38

Almost two-thirds of respondents said that no waste water was produced at their

event (65%); this however seems unlikely as all respondents stated that toilets were

present at their events (100%), and a large proportion stated that showering (75%)

and catering facilities (85%) were also available. It is suggested that waste water is

generally dealt with by contractors or site owners and is therefore often not

considered by event organisers. Waste water has the potential to cause soil and

water contamination if not properly managed and it would therefore seem important

for event organisers to be aware of the waste water produced at their event and

should be an important aspect of event management.

Waste Production

One-half of respondents felt that waste production at their event had a slight negative

environmental impact; just under one-half (45%) thought that it had no impact, and

one respondent stated that it had a positive impact (5%).

The collection of waste at events was found to be conducted mainly via public bins

(65%) and bins provided by event organisers (50%). All respondents stated that a

litter pick was conducted at their event. Only one respondent said that onsite

segregation of waste took place at their event.

In the majority of cases, waste was removed from events by event organisers (80%);

however contractors (20%), site owner (30%) and Local Authorities (35%) were also

involved at some events.

Methods of final disposal for waste appeared to be generally unknown. Eight

respondents stated that they recycled some of their waste (40%) and one said that

their waste was land-filled (5%). The remaining 55% did not state how their waste

was disposed of; this suggests a lack of awareness of what happens to waste

produced at events after it leaves the venue.

One-quarter of respondents said they took measures to reduce the amount of waste

produced at their event. Methods included recycling of plastic cups and bottles,

emailing competitors race information rather than posting it; reusing signs at





39

subsequent events; using reusable cups; reducing the amount of packaging used for

food items; and making efficient purchasing decisions.

Only one respondent related waste reduction to finance; they stated that �not much is

thrown away - we can't afford to do that, in terms of budgets it's quite a tight ship.�

The lack of respondents making this association suggests a lack of recognition that

good waste management can reduce costs. It is thought that highlighting the

potential cost savings of good waste management could help encourage event

organisers to adopt such practices.

The interview with Norman Brook highlighted the production of waste at triathlons as

a particular area of concern, in particular the distribution of swimming hats to all

competitors for use in the event. Norman suggested that these hats should be

reused or recycled rather than disposed of.

Energy Use

A large majority of respondents thought that energy use at their event had no impact

on the environment (70%); one-quarter of respondents thought that it had a slight

negative impact and one respondent thought that it had a slight positive impact.

Electricity was the most common source of energy at events (85%). Approximately

one-third of respondents said they used diesel and battery power. Gas (bottled and

mains) was also found to be used on a small number of occasions (15%). No uses

of oil or renewable energy were found.

A variety of appliances requiring energy were identified. The most commonly cited

appliances were computers (55%), PA systems (45%), timing systems (35%),

loudspeakers (25%) and catering facilities (25%). Also cited, although to a lesser

extent, were generators (10%), lighting (10%), finish gantries (10%), fridges (10%),

two-way radios (5%) and mobile phones (5%).

None of the respondents knew how much energy was consumed at their event. As

stated earlier, with regards to water, if event organisers were aware of the amount

and cost of their energy use, this may prompt them to make reductions.





40

Purchasing

A variety of considerations were used by event organisers when making purchasing

decisions (Figure 4). Price was the most commonly cited answer (85%); this is not

surprising considering the tight budgets that event organisers often have to work to.

Performance quality was the second most cited consideration when making

purchasing decisions (65%). Supplier service, durability, location of supplier and

potential for reuse were all cited by around one-third of respondents. Environmental

reputation of supplier, availability of spare parts and materials used in products were

not main considerations for any of the respondents.

Cumulative Impacts

All the events were found to occur on an annual basis. Over half of the event

locations (60%) were used for other events, the majority of which were sports events.

60% of respondents said that they considered whether or not other events were

taking place in the local area when planning their event. The majority of concerns

were regarding clashes or conflict with other events however a small number of

respondents also cited traffic congestion and the impact on the environment as

considerations.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS OF TRIATHLON EVENT ORGANISERS

(AIM 2)

Only three respondents said their organisation had an environmental PPP (15%) and

only one of these was a formal document. The organisation with a formal policy was

an SME that organised multiple events each year; the document, in the words of the

respondent was �basic, focusing upon rubbish and ensuring that the environment is

left how it is found.�





41

FIGURE 4: Main considerations given by event organisers when making

purchasing decisions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Price

Perfo

rman

ce q

uality

Suppli

er se

rvice

Potenti

al fo

r reu

se

Durab

ility

Loca

tion o

f sup

plier

Delive

ry m

ethod

Energ

y effic

iency

Amount

of pa

ckag

ing

Dispos

abilit

y

Potenti

al for

recy

cling

Enviro

nmen

tal re

putat

ion of

supp

lier

Mater

ials u

sed t

o pro

duce

prod

uct

Availa

bility

of sp

are

parts

Purchasing considerations

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Res

po

nd

ents

The two informal plans cited were held by triathlon clubs (both micro-enterprises)

organising relatively small, annual events; from the descriptions provided, the plans

seemed to be little more than a club ethos rather than an agreed PPP. This suggests

some environmental awareness, however indicates that the clubs lack the

commitment, time or finance needed to develop this into a formal PPP. This finding

agrees with Palmer (2000) who found that micro-enterprises tend to operate more

informally and have fewer formal systems than SMEs and other larger enterprises.

The remaining respondents (85%) had no environmental PPP. This could reflect a

lack of environmental awareness or a lack of commitment, however, it could also be

an indication that PPPs are not considered necessary by these organisers or that

resources are not available to develop and implement such a document. The lack of





42

environmental PPPs found within triathlon is not surprising when comparing them to

SMEs where less than a quarter of businesses have an environmental PPP in place

(Netregs 2003).

The three respondents (15%) who said they had an environmental PPP also stated

that they were aware of the environmental legislation applicable to their event; the

remaining seventeen respondents (85%) said they were unaware if any legislation

was applicable to them. Again, this is not surprising when comparing triathlon to

SMEs where only 18% of businesses are aware of the environmental legislation

applicable to them (Netregs 2003).

According to respondents, only a small proportion of those involved with triathlon

(including event organisers, contractors, staff, volunteers, competitors and

spectators) have received any environmental guidance, training or advice and only

very few of these were found to have received this formally.

Less then half of event organisers had received any training, guidance or advice

(45%); this came in a variety of forms including leaflets, websites, verbal

communication, information boards and signs. The most common issue on which

guidance was received was littering.

Event organisers were only aware of a very small number of cases where

contractors, staff, volunteers and competitors had received any environmental

guidance, training or advice relating to their event. More contractors, staff,

volunteers and competitors may have received environmental guidance, training and

advice; event organisers, however, may not have been aware of this. Of the

guidance, training and advice known of, the majority was informal and generally

given verbally as part of a race briefing; other lesser quoted communication methods

included leaflets and websites.

The apparent lack of guidance, training and advice received by event organisers,

contractors, staff, volunteers and competitors could suggest that firstly, as a result,

they have limited awareness of environmental issues associated with the event, and

secondly, that event organisers were not aware of any need for such training.





43

Respondents were found to have very little knowledge of EMSs and the current

systems available to the sports industry. Two respondents were aware of ISO

14001 (10%), none were aware of BS8555 and one was aware of EMAS (5%).

Half of respondents were unaware of whether or not there were any significant or

rare species present in the area covered by their event (50%). A number of

respondents were also unaware of whether their event pasted through any areas of

cultural or archaeological importance (25%) or any areas designated as protected

(15%) (Figure 2).

All respondent were unaware of the amount of energy and water that was consumed

at their event. This lack of knowledge could be taken as an indication of lack of

interest. This lack of awareness is unexpected considering the tight constraints on

finance when organising a triathlon and the potential for cost saving in these areas.

It is thought that any environmental management tools used in triathlon should

highlight the ability to save money through efficient energy and water use as this may

encourage event organisers to take action.

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN TRIATHLON (AIMS 3 � 5)

3.4.1 Current Practices (Aim 3)

Only one-third of respondents gave answers when questioned on considerations

given to the potential environmental impacts of their event. The lack of response

could be taken as an indication that no consideration is given. The majority of

answers that were given came within the �Biodiversity, Landscape and Cultural

Heritage� category; no considerations were made in respect of water use, energy

use, purchasing or cumulative impacts. Relevant answers included:


1. To minimise damage to water banks, shorelines, tracks, paths and

roadsides:





44

Use of recognised routes.

Transition area located on hard surface, with suitable access.

Race headquarters located in permanent structure, with adequate

car parking nearby.

Rapid disassemble of temporary structures after event.

Limit number of competitors.

Limit size of waves.

Ensure sufficient marshals are located around route.

2. To minimise disturbance to local wildlife:

Avoid areas were disturbance to wildlife may occur.

Use of a single entry and exit point for swim to avoid damage to

reed beds and spawning areas.

�Moving� birds away from the route.

Limit number of competitors.


3. To minimise traffic congestion:

Use of quiet roads.

Hold event early on Sunday mornings to alleviate traffic

congestion and parking problems.

Stagger swim starts so competitors are more spread out when

cycling and running, to try and reduce possible traffic congestion.


Ensure sufficient marshals are located around route.


Noise pollution kept to a minimum.

Water Use

No answers given.





45

Waste Production

Conducting litter pick after event.

Notices requesting site to be kept tidy.

Energy Use

No answers given.

Purchasing

No answers given.

Cumulative Impacts

No answers given.

3.4.2 Necessity (Aim 4)

Over half of respondents� events are currently increasing in competitor numbers

(55%) (Figure 5); this agrees with past research where triathlon is often quoted as

one of the fastest growing sports in the UK. If this growth continues, it is suggested

that any environmental impacts caused by triathlons and any need for environmental

management are also likely to increase in the future.

The vast majority of respondents believed there to be a need to consider the

environment when organising triathlons (85%). A variety of reasons were given

when questioned about this need; some respondents gave general answers stating

we should consider the environment as a whole while others highlighted particular

areas they thought should be considered, these included:

The use of transport to travel to and from event.

The importance of leaving no trace of event.

The potential of causing disturbance to local wildlife.





46

FIGURE 5: Changes in competitor numbers attending triathlon compared to

previous events

This is the first time this event

has run0%

Decreasing10%

Increasing55%

Same35%

Only three respondents stated that they thought there was no need to consider the

environment when organising triathlons (15%); the main reason given for this was the

small-scale of triathlons compared to other events. One respondent stated that

�triathlons have very limited environmental impact compared with many other more

pressing and larger ways of helping the environment.�

3.4.3 Recommendations for the Future (Aim 5)

Figure 6 shows the most common reasons cited by event organisers for not adopting

environmental management in triathlon; any suggestions made on future

environmental management measures would need to overcome these barriers in

order to be successful. The most commonly cited reasons (in descending order)

were:





47

1. Lack of guidance:

The most common reason cited was lack of guidance (50%); this indicates a need for

more guidance.

2. Financial Implication:

Over one-third of respondents cited financial implications as a main reason for not

adopting environmental management (40%); this is not surprising considering the

financial pressures already placed on event organisers by competitors to make

events affordable. Any environmental management tools recommended for use in

the future would need to be low cost and cost-effective.

3. Not Considered Necessary

40% of respondents stated that one of their main reasons for not adopted any

environmental management was that they did not consider it necessary. This

disagrees with responses given to an earlier question (Section 3.3.2), where 85% of

respondents stated that they thought there was a need to consider the environment

when organising triathlons.

This discontinuity could suggest a lack of awareness of what environmental

management entails or could be an indication that organisers do want to consider the

environment when planning events however do not want to do this formally.

To overcome this barrier any environmental management measure suggested would

need to provide event organisers with information on the potential environmental

impacts of triathlon and the reasons behind such measures.

4. Time Constraints:

A lack of time was considered a main reason for not adopting environmental

management by 20% of respondents. One respondent commented that �as a

volunteer I have limited time to bring together a complex event.� Any environmental

management tool introduced to triathlon would therefore need to be time-efficient.





48

FIGURE 6: The main reasons given by event organiser�s for not adopting

environmental management practices in triathlon

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Lack of guidance Financialimplications

Not considerednecessary

Time constraints

Main reasons given by event organisers for not adopting environmental management in triathlon

Per

cen

tag

e o

f res

po

nd

ents

Three-quarters of respondents stated that they would like more guidance made

available to them to help them manage the environmental impacts of their event

(Figure 7). This agrees with the findings shown in Figure 6, where a lack of guidance

was the most commonly cited reason for not adopting environmental management

and suggests that, based on the perceptions of the sample of returns, there is a clear

need for more environmental guidance in triathlon.

A number of different suggestions were made by event organisers as to what type of

guidance they would like to help them manage the environmental impacts of their

event (Figure 8).





49

FIGURE 7: Event organiser�s opinions on the need for more environmental

guidance in triathlon

Yes, more guidance is

needed75%

No, more guidance is not

needed20%

No answer5%

FIGURE 8: Event organiser�s suggestions on the type of guidance they would

like to help them manage the environmental impacts of their event

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Guidelines Website Code ofPractice

Trainingcourse

Email

Suggested types of guidance

Per

cen

tag

e o

f res

po

nd

ents





50

Guidelines were the most commonly cited idea, suggested by almost one-third of

respondents (30%); given the popularity of environmental guidelines already in the

sports industry, it is not surprising that they have also been highlighted here as

appropriate for triathlon. Websites were suggested by one-quarter of respondents

and codes of practice, training courses and emails were also suggested but to a

lesser extent.

The suitability of the environmental management tools suggested by event

organisers has been assessed using a matrix (Table 2).

The criteria used in the matrix were based on:

Responses given to Question 4.1.2 of the questionnaire survey on the

main reasons for not adopt environmental management.

Categories used by Tribe et al. (2000) in their evaluation of different

environmental management tools.

The matrix was completed based on:

The findings of the questionnaire survey and supplementary interview

(Chapter 3).

Past research on the use of and suitability of different environmental

management measures in SMEs (Section 1.2.2.2).

Past research on the use of and suitability of different environmental

management measures in the sports industry (Section 1.2.2.2).

Past research conducted by Tribe et al. (2000) evaluating different

environmental management measures.

Expert judgement.





51

TABLE 2: Matrix to assess the suitability of environmental management tools for triathlon

Gu

idelin

es

Web

site

Co

des o

f P

ractice

Em

ails

Train

ing

co

urse

Cost: The financial implications of environmental management were quoted by triathlon event organisers as one of the main reasons for not adopting environmental management. Any future measure introduced would need to be cost-effective.

2 2 2 2 0

Time: Time constraints were quoted by triathlon event organisers as one of the main reasons for not adopting environmental management. Any future measure introduced would need to be time-effective.

2 2 1 1 0

Acceptability: The level at which event organisers accept an environmental management tool and recognise and agree with its use is an important factor in determining its effectiveness (Tribe et al. 2000). Any recommendations on future environmental management for triathlon should therefore take into consideration the suggestions made by event organisers as it would seem likely that these would be more likely to be accepted by them and hence would be more effective.

2 2 1 1 1

Scale: A number of respondents commented that it was important that any environmental management employed in triathlon was relevant to the scale of the event, and kept in proportion to the level of impacts caused. Any environmental management measures proposed therefore need to be appropriate to the size of events held in the UK and the environmental impacts they cause to ensure they are not too heavy- or light handed.

2 2 2 2 0

Adaptability: Given the variability seen within triathlon events in the UK, it is suggested that for an environmental management instrument to be successful it would need to be flexible and adaptable so it can be tailored to local circumstances and meet the needs of individual events.

2 2 2 2 2

TOTAL SCORES: 10 10 8 8 3





52

(continuation of Table 2) KEY: 0 = Not suitable for use in triathlon 1 = Partially suitable for use in triathlon 2 = Suitable for use in triathlon

Based on Table 2, it is recommended that a set of web-based environmental

guidelines would be the most appropriate environmental management instrument for

triathlon; it is thought that this option would be low cost, would be adaptable to meet

the needs of individual events and would most likely be accepted and adopted by

event organisers.

A draft set of environmental guidelines has been developed and is shown in

Appendix 2; the guidelines were based on:

The findings of the questionnaire survey and supplementary interview

(Chapter 3).

Existing environmental guidelines currently used in the sports industry:

o Environmental Handbook for towed water sports (International

Water Ski Federation 2001).

o Environmental Guidelines: Mountain Bike Competitions

(International Cycling Union 1999).

o Environmental Charter: Minimum Standards for the Conduct of

Environmentally Conscious Adventure Racing (Canadian

Adventure Racing Association 2006).

o Adventure Racing Ecological Standards (United States Adventure

Racing Association 2006).

o Olympic Environmental Guidelines (Greenpeace 2000).





53

o UK Sport Practical Environmental Guidelines (UK Sport 2002).

The draft guidelines are intended as a starting point to demonstrate the potential of

the recommendation made. Further research would be needed to develop a full

working set of guidelines.

Two respondents suggested that any environmental guidance should come from the

BTF (10%). It is thought that a credible label or seal of approval, such as the support

of, and distribution by, the BTF, would greatly increase the likelihood of the adoption

of the suggested guidelines (Tribe et al. 2000). It is felt that the BTF has the potential

to play this role as they are already in contact with event organisers about

organisation and it therefore makes practical sense that they are involved with

distributing the guidelines. It is suggested that the BTF could make the guidelines

available on their website and distribute them alongside their �Event Organisers

Guide.�

A summary of the findings of this project and a copy of the draft guidelines were sent

to Norman Brook, Chief Executive Officer of the BTA, for his comment. Initial

discussions have proved positive and suggest that given further investigation a set of

environmental guidelines could be adopted and distributed by the BTF; Norman

stated that �I like this very much and subject to a peer review would be happy to see

it adopted by British Triathlon as a set of guidelines.�





54

CHAPTER 4: Conclusions

This chapter summarises the key findings of this project and assesses to what level it

has achieved its aims; it examines the limitations of the project and suggests

possible areas of future study.

4.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The aims of this project were to investigate the environmental impacts caused by

triathlon, the environmental awareness of event organisers, the current

environmental management practises employed in triathlon and the necessity of

environmental management in triathlon and then, based on these findings, to make

recommendations on the most appropriate environmental management measures

that could be employed in triathlon in the future.

A literature review, a questionnaire survey and a supplementary interview were used

to meet these aims as follows:

Aim 1: to identify the main environmental impacts caused by triathlon

A review of current literature was used to identify the activities involved with triathlon;

these were then used to predict the potential environmental impacts of events. A

questionnaire survey was developed based on these findings to identify the extent to

which these activities take place in open water triathlons in the UK and hence the

main environmental impacts of these triathlons as perceived by event organisers.

The potential environmental impacts of triathlon, based on the perceptions of triathlon

event organisers, were identified as:

Biodiversity, Landscape and Cultural Heritage:

o Disturbance of local wildlife.

o Habitat damage and destruction.

o Damage of water banks, shorelines, tracks, paths and roadsides.

o Traffic congestion.





55

Production of Pollution:

o Air pollution.

o Water contamination.

o Soil contamination.

o Noise pollution.

Water Use:

o Depletion of water resources.

Waste Production:

o Adding to waste stream going to landfill.

Energy Use:

o Depletion of raw materials.

Purchasing:

o Depletion of raw materials.

o Adding to waste stream going to landfill.

Cumulative Impacts:

o Accumulation of all of the above.

Aim 2: to assess the current environmental awareness of triathlon event organisers

A number of indicators were used to assess the level of environmental awareness of

triathlon event organisers; these indicators showed that in the questionnaire sample

of returns:

Very few triathlon organising bodies have an environmental PPP.

Very few event organisers are aware of environmental legislation

applicable to their event.





56

Very few triathlon event organisers, contractors, staff, volunteers,

competitors or spectators have received any guidance, training or advice

on environmental issues relating to their event (as known by the event

organisers).

Very few event organisers are aware of the use of EMSs or of the

certified EMS�s available to them.

None of the event organisers are aware of the amount of energy or water

used at their event.

Half of the event organisers do not know whether or not there are any

significant or rare species of plant, animals, reptiles or insects present in

the area covered by their event.

Based on these findings, it is suggested that, within the sample of returns, the

environmental awareness of triathlon event organisers is lacking and that event

organisers are failing to recognise the link between the activities involved with their

event and their potential to cause environmental damage.

Aim 3: to investigate environmental management practices currently used in triathlon

The literature review found little evidence of the use of environmental management in

triathlon. This agreed with the findings of the questionnaire survey, which suggested

that little consideration is currently being given to the potential environmental impacts

of triathlon by event organisers. Considerations that were identified by the

questionnaire survey tended to concentrate on biodiversity, landscape and cultural

heritage; other considerations given were related to waste production and noise

pollution. None of the respondents gave any consideration to water use, energy use,

purchasing or cumulative impacts.

Based on these findings, it is concluded that environmental management practices

currently used in triathlon are minimal.





57

Aim 4: to determine the necessity for environmental management within triathlon

As identified by the literature review and confirmed by the questionnaire survey,

triathlon is currently a fast-growing sport with many events increasing in size over

time. This growth suggests that any need for environmental management in triathlon

is also likely to grow in the future.

The findings of the questionnaire survey showed that the vast majority of

respondents believed there to be a need to consider the environment when

organising triathlons; this finding, however, was confusing compared to responses

given to a later question, where over one-third of respondents stated that

environmental management was not considered necessary in triathlon. This

discontinuity suggests that event organisers are confused about the concept of

environmental management and indicates that event organisers do believe there to

be a need for environmental management in triathlon, however, they do not wish this

to be done in a formal manner.

Aim 5: to make recommendations on the most appropriate environmental


In order to make recommendations on the most appropriate environmental

management measures that could be used when planning and organising triathlons,

firstly, the main barriers currently preventing its adoption were identified. Based on

the results of the questionnaire survey, these barriers are the current lack of

guidance available to event organisers, the financial and time constraints on event

organisers, and the perception of event organisers that environmental management

in triathlon is not necessary. It was concluded that any future environmental

management measures used in triathlon would need to overcome these barriers in

order to be successful.

Three-quarters of the questionnaire respondents stated that they would like more

guidance to help them manage their environmental impacts. Respondents made a

number of suggestions as to what form they would like this guidance to take; these

suggestions were analysed using a matrix to determine the most appropriate

approach for triathlon. It was concluded that a web-based set of environmental

guidelines would be the most suitable environmental management tool for triathlon





58

based on their low cost, their adaptability and their likely acceptance and adoption by

event organisers. A draft set of guidelines were produced.

4.2 LIMITATIONS

Although the aims of this project have been met, the limitations associated with the

methods employed suggest that further research would be needed to confirm the

findings and assertions made.

Questionnaire Survey

The use of a questionnaire survey as the primary research method for this project

meant that the findings did not provide evidence of the actual environmental impacts

caused by triathlon; rather it gave an indication of the impacts as perceived by event

organisers. If more time were available, data collection from the field may have been

beneficial to assess how accurate the event organiser�s perceptions were.

Due to the inherent problems associated with questionnaire surveys, there is a

possibility of bias within the answers given. Site visits and interviews with event

organisers could have been undertaken to verify the responses given to the

questionnaire.

Due to the response rate received from the questionnaire survey, the findings could

not be taken as representative of the whole population. Inferences were made about

the whole population based on the results of the questionnaire survey however

further investigation would be needed to confirm such assumptions.

Due to time and financial constraints, the questionnaire survey was aimed solely at

open water triathlon event organisers in the UK. Open water triathlons account for

one-third of triathlons held in the UK; subsequently it cannot be assumed that the

findings of this project are representative of all triathlons. Further research would be

needed to identify whether or not pool-based triathlons would produce the same

results as seen here for open water triathlons and whether or not the results found

here are representative of triathlons held in countries other than the UK.





59

The questionnaire survey only targeted event organisers; this limited the findings to

the perceptions of only one group of people involved in triathlon. If more time were

available, it is thought that the opinions of other groups such as the competitors or

site owners would help verify the accuracy of the event organisers� perceptions.

Environmental Guidelines

The only environmental management tools assessed for suitability to triathlon were

those suggested by event organisers; other options (e.g. EMSs, laws and

regulations, service charges, treaties, or award schemes (Tribe et al. 2000)) were not

considered. It is suggested that options that were not suggested by the

questionnaire respondents may also be suitable for use in triathlon however

additional research would be needed to investigate this further.

Although the criteria and scoring system used to assess the suggested

environmental management tools were developed and applied based on the findings

of this project and past research, they also involved an element of expert judgement

and were therefore subjective and had the potential to be influenced by personal

bias. The development of the draft guidelines also involved expert judgement; their

creation was therefore also subject to some aspects of subjectivity.

The guidelines that were developed were produced in draft form. Given the time and

financial constraints of this project, the development of a full working model of

guidelines was not feasible, however further research in this area could enable the

guidelines to be developed further. It is suggested that consultation with event

organisers and a trial use of the guidelines by a cross-section of event organisers

would help ensure that the measures suggested are feasible in triathlon.

Despite the limitations of this project, it is thought that the results and conclusions

have provided some baseline data from which future research can follow and have

played an important role in contributing to filling the gaps in research that were

identified in the literature review.





60

4.3 FUTURE RESEARCH

Due to the speed at which the sport of triathlon is growing, it is suggested that a

longer-term study would be of benefit to assess any changes that may occur as the

sport grows.

Throughout this study it has became increasingly clear that the economic and social

aspects of triathlon organisation play an extremely important role in determining the

success of a triathlon; it is therefore suggested that a future study could investigate

the sustainability of triathlon rather than focussing solely on the environmental issues

as done here.

If the recommendation of environmental guidelines were to be adopted in the UK,

future research could investigate their effectiveness; this would help develop the idea

and ensure its future success.





61

REFERENCES

Ace Races. 2007. Getting into Adventure Racing. Available:

http://www.aceraces.com/index2.html [accessed 4th February 2007].

Alemagi D, Oben P, Ertel J. 2006. Implementing Environmental Management

Systems in Industries along the Atlantic Coat of Cameroon: Drivers, Benefits and

Barriers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 13: 221 -

232.

Andrews R, Darnall N, Rigling Gallagher D. 1999. Environmental Management

Systems: A Strategy for a Sustainable World? In: Eighth International Conference of

the Greening of the Industry Network, "Sustainability: Ways of Knowing, Ways of

Acting". Kenneth Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Barnes P, Jerman P. 2002. Developing an environmental management system for a

multiple-university consortium. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 33 - 39.

Barrow C. 1999. Environmental Management Principles and Practice. London:

Routledge.

BBC. 2007. BBC Sport Homepage. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/default.stm

[accessed 15th July 2007].

Brady J. 2005. Chapter 3. In: Environmental Management in Organisations: the IEMA

Handbook (Brady J, ed). London: Earthscan, 97 - 117.

Breakwell G. 1990. Interviewing. London: The British Psychological Society and

Routledge Ltd.

British Triathlon. 2007a. Event Organisers Guide. British Triathlon.

British Triathlon. 2007b. Events. Available:

http://www.britishtriathlon.org/events/index.php [accessed 15th May 2007].




http://www.aceraces.com/index2.html

http://www.aceraces.com/index2.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/default.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/default.stm

http://www.britishtriathlon.org/events/index.php

http://www.britishtriathlon.org/events/index.php


62

British Triathlon. 2007c. Newcomers Guide. Available:

http://www.britishtriathlon.org/about/participation/ [accessed 15th May 2007].

Bryman A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BSI Group. 2007a. BS 8555:2003 Environmental management systems. Available:

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000030077920

[accessed 22nd July 2007].

BSI Group. 2007b. BS 8901:2007 Sustainable event management system. Available:

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-

Sectors/Environment/Sustainability-Recycling--Packaging/BS-8901-Draft-for-Public-

Comment-DPC-/ [accessed 22nd July 2007].

BSI Group. 2007c. ISO 14001 Environment. Available: http://www.bsi-

global.com/en/Assessment-and-certification-services/management-

systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-14001/ [accessed 19th February 2007].

Buchholz R. 1998. Principles of Environmental Management: The Greening of

Business. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bullock A. 2007. 'Come on you Greens'. In: Costing the Earth (Bullock A, ed): Radio

4.

Canadian Adventure Racing Association. 2006. Environmental Charter: Minimum

Standards for the Conduct of Environmentally Conscious Adventure Racing.

Canadian Adventure Racing Association.

Catchpole Z. 2007. Norwich Triathlon. Evening News (Norwich) 2nd June 2007.

Chernushenko D. 2006. Sustainable Sports Management: Running an

environmentally, socially and economically responsible organisation: UNEP.

Cleaver B. 2001. Environmental Management Systems for SME's: A guide to

environmental management for the smaller company. London: BSI.




http://www.britishtriathlon.org/about/participation/

http://www.britishtriathlon.org/about/participation/



http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Environment/Sustainability-Recycling--Packaging/BS-8901-Draft-for-Public-Comment-DPC-/

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Assessment-and-certification-services/management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-14001/

http://www.bsi-


63

Commission of the European Community. 1996. Council Recommendation of 3 April

1996 Concerning the Definition of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Official

Journal of the European Communities 107.39(30 May 1996).

Committed to Green Foundation. 2005. Environmental Management Systems and

Accreditation for Golf Facilities: Summary Paper. The Committed to Green

Foundation.

Copley J. 2005. Sports events leave a giant 'ecological footprint'. New Scientist, 16th

April 2005.

Davis K. 2007a. Planning of the Norwich Triathlon. Norwich: Tri-Anglia.

Davis K. 2007b. Tri-Anglia membership numbers. Norwich: Tri-Anglia.

Dobson N, Gratton C, Holiday S. 1997. Football Came Home: The Economic Impact

of Euro 96. Sheffield: Leisure Industries Research Centre.

Downie I. 2007. BS 8901 - get involved before its too late. Available:

http://eventsreview.com/news/point_of_view/682 [accessed 22nd July 2007].

European Commission. 2007. EMAS and Eco-label - greening sports events.

Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/green_events/index_en.htm [accessed

17th May 2007].

Fink A. 2003a. How to ask survey questions. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Fink A. 2003b. The Survey Handbook. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Gerrans P, Hutchinson B. 2000. Sustainable Development and Small and Medium-

Sized Enterprises: A long way to go. In: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and

the Environment (Hillary R, ed). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Gerstenfeld A, Roberts H. 2000. Size Matters: barriers and prospects for the

environmental management in small and medium-sized enterprises. In: Small and




http://eventsreview.com/news/point_of_view/682

http://eventsreview.com/news/point_of_view/682

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/green_events/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/green_events/index_en.htm


64

Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment (Hillary R, ed). Sheffield: Greenleaf

Publishing.

Greenpeace. 2000. Greenpeace Olympic Environmental Guidelines: A Guide to

Sustainable Events. Greenpeace.

Higham J. 1999. Commentary - Sport as an avenue of tourism development: an

analysis of positive and negative impacts of sport tourism. Current Issues in Tourism

2(1).

Hillary R. 2004. Environmental Management Systems and the smaller enterprise.

Journal of Cleaner Production 12: 561 - 569.

International Cycling Union. 1999. Mountain Bike Competitions: UCI Environmental

Guidelines. UCI.

International Motorcycling Federation. 2001. Environmental Code. International

Motorcycling Federation.

International Olympic Committee. 1997. Manual on Sport and the Environment.

Lausanne, Switzerland: International Olympic Committee.

International Water Ski Federation. 2001. Environmental Handbook for Towed Water

Sports: A Guide to Understanding and Addressing Environmental Issues.

International Water Ski Federation.

Ipswich Town Football Club. 2007. Save your energy for the Blues! Available:

http://www.saveyourenergyfortheblues.co.uk [accessed 25th May 2007].

ISO. 2005. The Principle Findings of the ISO Survey of Certifications. Available:

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/pdf/survey.pdf [accessed 19th February

2007].

Kuniyal J. 2002. Mountain expeditions: minimising the impact. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review 22: 561 - 581.




http://www.saveyourenergyfortheblues.co.uk/

http://www.saveyourenergyfortheblues.co.uk

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/pdf/survey.pdf

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/pdf/survey.pdf


65

Lidbury E. 2007. Competing Costs. 220 Triathlon.

Merritt J. 1998. EM into SME won't go? Attitudes, awareness and practices in the

London Borough of Croydon. Business Strategy and the Environment 7: 90 - 100.

National Ski Areas Association. 2005. Sustainable Slopes: The Environmental

Charter for ski areas. National Ski Areas Association.

National Statistics. 2002. Participation in sports, games and physical activity.

Available: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=735 [accessed 22nd May

2007].

Netregs. 2003. SME-nvironment 2003. Available: http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/smenvironment_uk_2003.pdf [accessed 15th

May 2007].

Olympic Movement. 2007. IOC to be honoured as a champion of the earth 2007.

Available: http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/olympic_news/full_storyuk.asp?is+2045

[accessed 26th May 2007].

On Snow. 2007. Environmentally Friendly Resorts. Available:

http://www.onsnow.co.uk/EnvironmentallyFriendlyResorts.html [accessed 30th May

2007].

Oppenheim A. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement.

New ed. London: Pinter Publishers.

Palmer J. 2000. Helping Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises improve

environmental management: Lessons learnt from proactive small and micro firms. In:

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment (Hillary R, ed). Sheffield:

Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Robson C. 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and

Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.




http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=735

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=735

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/smenvironment_uk_2003.pdf

http://www.environment-

http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/olympic_news/full_storyuk.asp?is+2045

http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/olympic_news/full_storyuk.asp?is+2045

http://www.onsnow.co.uk/EnvironmentallyFriendlyResorts.html

http://www.onsnow.co.uk/EnvironmentallyFriendlyResorts.html


66

Roythorne P. 2007. Eventia disappointed with BS 8901 draft. Available:

http://www.eventsreview.co.uk/news/business/690 [accessed 22nd July 2007].

Savely S, Carson A, Delclos G. 2007. An environmental management system

implementation model for U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Cleaner

Production 15: 660 - 670.

Schaltegger S, Burrit R, Petersen H. 2003. An Introduction to Corporate

Environmental Management - Striving for Sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf

Publishing.

Sharpley R. 1996. Tourism and Leisure in the Countryside. 2nd ed. Huntingdon:

ELM.

Sheldon C, Yoxon M. 2006. Installing Environmental Management Systems - a step-

by-step guide. London: Earthscan Publications.

Smith A, Kemp R, Duff C. 2000. Small Firms and the Environment: factors that

influence small and medium-sized enterprises' environmental behaviour. In: Small

and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment (Hillary R, ed). Sheffield:

Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Starkey R. 2000. Environmental Management Tools: Some options for small- and

medium-sized enterprises. In: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the

Environment (Hillary R, ed). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Steger U. 2000. Environmental Management Systems: Empirical Evidence and

Further Perspectives. European Management Journal 18(1): 23 - 37.

Triathlon.org. 2004. Madrid World Cup receives Eco Flag. Available:

http://www.triathlon.org/zpg/znews-

dtl.php?src=newsMADRIDWORLDCUPRECEIVEfrgh_image_0.jpg&nwsid=24&title+

Large+picture [accessed 22nd May 2007].




http://www.eventsreview.co.uk/news/business/690

http://www.eventsreview.co.uk/news/business/690

http://www.triathlon.org/zpg/znews-dtl.php?src=newsMADRIDWORLDCUPRECEIVEfrgh_image_0.jpg&nwsid=24&title+Large+picture

http://www.triathlon.org/zpg/znews-


67

Tribe J, Font X, Griffiths N, Vickery R, Yale K. 2000. Environmental Management for

Rural Tourism and Recreation. London: Cassell.

UK Sport. 2002. Practical Environmental Guidelines: World Class Events. UK Sport.

UNEP. 2004. UNEP Sport and Environmental General Information. Available:

http://unep.org/sport_env/General_Information/impact_sport.asp [accessed 5th

February 2007].

United States Adventure Racing Association. 2006. Adventure Racing Ecological

Standards. USARA.

Viebahn P. 2002. An Environment Management Model for Universities: from

Environmental Guidelines to Staff Involvement. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 3 -

12.

Walley L. 2000. The environmental champion: making a start - Westfield: an SME

success story. In: Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Environment (Hillary

R, ed). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Wells A. 1997. Training and Environmental Management Systems. In: ISO 14001

and Beyond: Environmental Management Systems in the Real World (Sheldon C,

ed). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.

Williams H, Van Hooydonk A, Dingle P, Annandale D. 2000. Developing tailored

environmental management systems for small business. Eco-management and

Auditing 7: 106 - 113.

Zutshi A, Sohal A. 2004. Environmental Management System adoption by Australian

organisations. Technovation 24: 335 - 357.




http://unep.org/sport_env/General_Information/impact_sport.asp

http://unep.org/sport_env/General_Information/impact_sport.asp


68

APPENDIX 1

Questionnaire for event organisers on the Environmental Management of Triathlons in the UK

Please complete and return by 20th May 2007 in the SAE provided. SECTION 1: Background 1.1 Your title/ role: ___________________________________________________ 1.2 Name of event: __________________________________________________ 1.3 Date of event: ___________________________________________________ 1.4 Event location: ___________________________________________________ 1.5 Organising body (e.g. club, company etc.): _____________________________ _______________________________________________________________ 1.6 Distance (please tick one):

Long Sprint Middle Super Sprint Standard/ Olympic Novice Other (please specify): __________________________________________

1.7 What is the expected attendance of:

Competitors? _______________ Spectators? _______________ Staff? _______________ Volunteers? _______________

1.8 Compared to previous events, are competitor numbers (please tick one):

Increasing Decreasing Staying roughly the same This is the first time the event has run





69

SECTION 2: Environmental Impacts of Event 2.1 BIODIVERSITY, LANDSCAPE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE 2.1.1 What facilities are available at the event and are these facilities a permanent

fixture at the site or a temporary measure for the event (please tick all relevant boxes)?

Permanent

Fixture Temporary Measure Not Available

Race headquarters Catering Toilets for competitors Toilets for spectators Changing facilities Showering facilities Others, please specify:

2.1.2 Please give a brief description of the area surrounding the event headquarters

and route (e.g. mainly urban/ rural etc.): ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

2.1.3 Does any of the cycle or run route cover any off road sections?

Yes, please specify (e.g. one mile stretch of run route passes through woodland on a narrow sandy track): _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

2.1.4 Are there any significant or rare species of plants, animals, reptiles or insects

present in the area covered by the event? Yes, please specify types, quantities and what considerations are given to them when organising event: _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No Don�t know

2.1.5 What level of impact do you think your event has on local wildlife?

Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact

Strong negative impact





70

2.1.6 Is the event based in or does the route pass through any areas designated as protected by national or local authorities?

Yes, please specify types and sizes: _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No Don�t know

2.1.7 Are there any areas of cultural or archaeological importance in the area covered by the event?

Yes, please specify types, quantities and what considerations are given to them when organising event: _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No Don�t know

2.1.8 What level of impact do you think your event has on local cultural heritage?

Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact Strong negative impact

2.1.9 What level of impact do you think your event has on the visual aesthetics of

the local area? Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact Strong negative impact

2.1.10 Which of the following are used for car parking? Surfaced car parks Un-surfaced car parks Road sides Other, please specify: __________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________





71

2.2 PRODUCTION OF POLLUTION 2.2.1 Please indicate what level of impact you think pollution produced by your

event has on the following components of the environment: Strong

Positive Impact

Slight Positive Impact

No Impact/

Balanced Impact

Slight Negative Impact

Strong Negative Impact

Air Water Soil Noise

2.2.2 Are any vehicles used for running the event (e.g. boats, fleet vehicles, pace

setters, first aid support etc.)? Yes, please specify quantity, types, distances covered and fuel used: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

2.2.3 Approximately how many additional vehicles come to the area as a result of the event (including staff, competitors and spectators)? __________________ ______________________________________________________________

2.2.4 What level of environmental impact do you think your event has as a result of its use of transport?

Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact

Strong negative impact 2.2.5 Are any loud speakers, address systems or generators used during the event?

Yes, please specify: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

2.2.6 Are any chemicals or hazardous substances used during the event (e.g.

petrol, diesel, oil, lubricants, cleaning products etc.)? Yes, please specify substances, their usage and procedures in place to prevent/ respond to spillages: ____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No





72

2.3 WATER USE 2.3.1 What level of environmental impact do you think your event has as a result of

water use? Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact Strong negative impact

2.3.2 Where is the water used at the event sourced from (please tick all relevant

options)? Mains supply Borehole Direct pumping from river/stream Recycled/ reused water from drainage water/ treated sewage water Other, please specify: __________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

2.3.3 What are the main uses of water at the event (please tick a maximum of two options)?

Consumption Toilets Personal hygiene (e.g. showers) Cleaning Other, please specify: __________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

2.3.4 Please can you provide details of the amount of water used during the event: Yes, please specify: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No, unknown/ no record

2.3.5 Is any waste water produced during the event?

Yes, please specify source, amount, treatment and discharge routes: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

2.4 WASTE PRODUCTION 2.4.1 What level of environmental impact you think your event has as a result of

waste production? Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact Strong negative impact





73

2.4.2 How is the waste produced at the event disposed of (please tick all relevant options)?

Collection of waste in public bins Collection of waste in bins provided by the event organisers Pick-up of litter following race Segregation of waste on site (e.g. separate bins for different materials) Removal of waste by event organisers Removal of waste by contractor Removal of waste by site owner Removal of waste by Local Authority Landfilled Reused Recycled Incinerated Composted Other, please specify: __________________________________________

2.4.3 Are any measures taken to reduce the amount of waste produced by the

event? Yes, please specify: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

2.5 ENERGY USE 2.5.1 What level of environmental impact you think your event has as a result of

energy use? Strong positive impact Slight positive impact No Impact/ balanced impact Slight negative impact Strong negative impact

2.5.2 What types of energy are used at the event (please tick all relevant options)?

Electricity Mains gas Bottled gas Oil Diesel generators Battery Renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, wave) Other, please specify: __________________________________________





74

2.5.3 Please list appliances used at the event which consume energy (e.g. loud speakers, clocks, lighting, computer, catering equipment etc.) and provide details of their usage:

Appliances Usage (including for what and duration)

2.5.4 Please can you provide details of the amount of energy consumed during the

event: Yes, please specify: ____________________________________________ No, unknown/ no record

PURCHASING 2.6.1 What are the events main considerations when making purchasing decisions

about products and services (please tick a maximum of four options)? Price Performance quality Durability Energy efficiency Location of supplier Supplier service Delivery method Environmental reputation of supplier Materials used to produce product Availability of spare parts Amount of packaging used by supplier Disposability Potential for reuse of product Potential for recycling of product Other, please specify: __________________________________________





75

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2.7.1 How often is this event held at this location? ___________________________

______________________________________________________________

2.7.2 Are any other events held in the same location as your event at other times of the year?

Yes, please give details: ________________________________________ No Don�t know

2.7.3 Was any consideration given to other events taking place in the area when

planning your event? Yes, please specify: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

SECTION 3: Environmental Awareness 3.1 Does your organisation have any form of environmental policy, plan or

programme? Yes, please give details and attach a copy if possible: __________________ _____________________________________________________________ No

3.2 Are you aware of any environmental legislation that is applicable to your event? Yes, please specify: _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ No





76

3.3 Was/ will any guidance, advice or training be given/ received on any environmental issues relating to the event? Please give details in the table below:

Guidance, advice and training provided (e.g. use of resources,

prevention of litter, production of noise, protection of local wildlife, etc.)

Form of information (e.g. advice on website, training courses, newsletters, information boards, leaflets, signs etc.)

Event organiser

Contractors

Staff

Volunteers

Competitors

Spectators

3.4 Are you aware of any of the following (please tick all relevant options)?

Environmental Management Systems ISO 14001 BS 8555 Eco-Management and Auditing Scheme (EMAS) GEE ECO Management Programme





77

SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 4.1 CURRENT PRACTICE 4.1.1 What considerations are/ were given to the possible environmental impacts of

the event during organisation? Please provide your answers in the table below:

Considerations

Biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage

Production of pollution

Water use

Waste Production

Energy Use

Purchasing

Cumulative Impacts





78

4.2 NECESSITY 4.2.1 Do you think that we need to consider the environment when planning

triathlons? Please explain your answer:

4.3 FUTURE PRACTICE 4.3.1 What would be/ are you main reasons for NOT adopting environmental

management practices (please tick a maximum of two options)? Financial implications Time constraints Not considered necessary Lack of guidance Other, please specify: _________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 4.3.2 Would you like to see more guidance made available to event organisers to

help them manage the environmental impacts of their event? Yes, in what form would you like this guidance (e.g. Codes of Practice, guidelines, training courses, websites, forums etc.)? __________________ ____________________________________________________________ No

4.3.3 Please use this section to express any views you have about this

questionnaire or any other comments you have on the environmental management of triathlons that have not already been covered:





79

SECTION 5: FINALLY� 5.1 Would you be willing for me to contact you and discuss some of the issues

above further? Yes, please provide a contact name and phone number or email address:

______________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

No 5.2 Would you like a summary of my findings on completion of this study in August? Yes, please provide an email address (preferable) or postal address:

______________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

No

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Please return it in the SAE provided by 20th May 2007.





80

APPENDIX 2

Draft Environmental Guidelines for Triathlon

All sports activities and events impact on the environment. Although triathlons may not cause large-scale, high impact

environmental degradation, due to the increasing number of events currently taking place in the UK, it is important that we manage

their environmental impacts appropriately.

These guidelines have been designed for use by open water triathlon event organisers to encourage the planning of

environmentally-sound events. Their aim is to raise the awareness of organisers to the potential environmental impacts of

triathlons, to reduce the environmental damage caused by triathlons and to improve and promote the environmental reputation of

triathlon. Many of the guidelines are also likely to save money.

When applying the guidelines, it is vital that they are considered in the planning process from the very start and involve discussion

and collaboration with all interested parties (e.g. local authorities, local environmental organisations and groups, local residents,

media, suppliers, local businesses); this will help ensure they are appropriate and effective.





81

KEY AREA AIMS MEASURES

BIODIVERSITY, LANDSCAPE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

To minimise damage to water banks, shorelines, tracks, paths and roadsides.

To minimise

disturbance to wildlife.

To minimise

habitat damage and destruction.

To minimise

visual intrusion. To minimise

traffic congestion.

Ensure selected event location has adequate permanent facilities (including race headquarters, toilets, showering facilities, changing facilities, and catering) in order to minimise use of temporary facilities.

Where temporary facilities are used, ensure they are disassembled immediately after the event.

Consider the choice of event location carefully; avoid sensitive locations which may be more susceptible to environmental damage.

Plan cycle and run route to stay on pre-existing roads, tracks or paths at all times; routes crossing open areas should be avoided wherever possible.

Ensure any off-road sections of cycle and run route are suitable and appropriate for the event and can accommodate the expected number of competitors; this may include, for example, ensuring the tracks and paths are wide enough and have a suitable surface covering to accommodate competitors.

Locate transition area on a hard surface with suitable access to swim exit and cycle start.

Identify any significant or protected species of plants, animals, reptiles, insects or fish present at event location or in the local area and take measures to work around them; this may include, for example, designing the route to avoid such areas.

Identify any areas designated as protected by national or local authorities in the area and take measures to work around them; this may include, for example, avoiding such areas all together or marking areas with signs or flagging to minimise access.

Consult with local wildlife experts and local authorities to seek out local knowledge, maps and guidebooks to help highlight and understand any environmental concerns in the area.

Provide permanent car parks for competitors, spectators and organisers to leave their cars in; avoid use of road sides for parking.





82

Limit the number of competitors that can enter the event so its size is appropriate for local circumstances.

Where using a wave start, carefully consider the size of each wave. Ensure sufficient marshals are located around the route. Hold event at quiet times to alleviate traffic congestion.

PRODUCTION OF POLLUTION

To minimise noise pollution.

To minimise

water contamination.

To minimise air

pollution. To minimise

soil contamination.

Minimise the use of motorised vehicles and consider the use of non-motorised vehicles where possible (e.g. canoes and bicycles).

Where motorised vehicles are used, introduce a no idling policy; display signs in car parks and inform all marshals of policy.

Encourage competitors, spectators, staff and volunteers to travel to and from the event on public transport; this may involve consulting with local transport companies regarding increasing capacity, transport of bikes, timetables and ticketing.

Encourage competitors, spectators, staff and volunteers to share lifts when travelling to the event; this may include setting up a car pool system and publishing a map on the internet showing where competitors are travelling from.

Offer incentives to high occupancy vehicles; this may include, for example, introducing a sliding scale for car parking costs depending on how many people are in the car.

Minimise the use of noise generating equipment, including PA systems, generators, loudspeakers and megaphones.

Carefully consider the positioning of PA systems, generators, loudspeakers and megaphone so they are directed away from areas of local residents.

Avoid use of chemicals of hazardous substances. Ensure adequate procedures are in place to prevent/ respond to spillages of chemicals

and hazardous substances. Avoid the used of spray paint for marking the ground; consider alternatives such as

sawdust or the use of removable signage. WATER USE To ensure

efficient use of Consider necessity of all uses of water. Work with site/ venue owners to ensure efficient water use; this could include, for





83

water. example, assessing appliances and fittings for water efficiency and displaying signs encouraging efficient use of water, Find out how much water is being used at triathlon and how much it is costing; this may

motivate you to reduce consumption. Ensure that waste water is treated and disposed of in a way which respects the

environment. WASTE PRODUCTION

To reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.

Ensure sufficient bins are provided for the expected number of people at event. Display notices at event requesting site to be kept tidy. Conduct litter-pick after event. Segregate recyclables from general waste; this could be done, for example, by

providing separate bins for recyclables, or by sorting the waste after collection. Ensure waste is removed from the event by a trusted person. Ensure that all waste is disposed of in a way which respects the environment; only send

waste to landfill where absolutely necessary. ENERGY USE To ensure

efficient use of energy.

Consider necessity of all uses of energy. Work with site/ venue owners to minimise energy use; this could include, for example,

turning off appliances when they are not being used, installing energy efficient appliances and displaying signs encouraging efficient use of energy.

Find out how much energy is being used at triathlon and how much it is costing; this may motivate you to reduce consumption.

PURCHASING To ensure all purchasing decisions are made with consideration to their environmental impact.

Do not make purchasing decision based solely on price. When making purchasing decisions, be sure to consider the durability, potential for

reuse, materials used and availability of spare parts for a product; these may make a product more expensive in the short term, but can often produce cost savings in the long term.





84

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

To minimise accumulation of environmental impacts.

Identify other events occurring at the same time as your event and consider the cumulative impacts of this clash; work with other event organisers to minimise environmental damage.

Identify other events occurring at the same venue as your event and consider the cumulative impacts of this; work with other event organisers to minimise the accumulation of impacts. This may include, for example, carefully selecting paths and tracks used for routes to ensure none are overused.





Documents

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF SPORTS EVENTS: TRIATHLON … · Triathlon is a relatively new sport, however, its popularity is growing fast. As yet, little research has been conducted