Outline
- Abstract
- Introduction
- The Concept of Sport Cities
- The Livable City
- The Social Benefits of Sport
- Use of Gehl and Coalter in Sport-Related Research
- A Proposed Conceptual Framework
- Research Propositions
- Community Physical and Mental Health
- Economic Development and Sustainability
- Community Development
- Crime Reduction and Community Safety
- Education and Employment
- Limitations of the Conceptual Framework
- Conclusion
- Disclosure Statement
- Notes
- References
رئوس مطالب
- چکیده
- مقدمه
- مفهوم شهرهای ورزشی
- شهر قابل زندگی
- منافع اجتماعی ورزش
- بکارگیری Gehl و Coalter در تحقیقات مرتبط با ورزش
- پیشنهاد یک چارچوب مفهومی
- گزاره های تحقیقاتی
- سلامتی جسمی و روانی جامعه
- توسعه اقتصادی و پایداری
- توسعه جامعه
- کاهش جرم و ایمنی جامعه
- آموزش و اشتغال
- محدودیت‌های چارچوب مفهومی
- نتیجه‌گیری
Abstract
Sport cities” are one of the latest manifestations of global sport. A broad and widely used term, it has typically been applied to rationalize the costs of new sporting infrastructure, to extend the economic benefit from major sport event legacies, or as a city branding venture. There is currently little research that critically interprets the social aspects of sport cities, or the social benefits in sport city planning. In this paper we propose a conceptual framework that integrates concepts from the fields of urban planning and sport. The social benefits of sport cities framework provides a research structure through which to explore whether, and to what extent, social benefits have been considered in sport city planning. By highlighting this little researched area and by introducing a conceptual framework that combines two inter-related fields, this paper may help academics and practitioners better understand the social contribution of sport cities.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to propose a conceptual framework through which to critically assess social benefit planning intent in the development of sport cities. The paper argues that the absence of social benefit planning in this regard may not only reduce the chances of positive social outcomes, but may contribute to a longer term social disconnection between the sporting infrastructure and the community.
The proposed SBSC framework relates sport cities not only to urban regeneration and city livability, but also to the potential role of sport in the delivery of social benefits. The framework provides a platform to critically interpret if the social components were considered in sport city planning. In doing so, it provides a means to explore how the social benefits are interpreted and used in public policy and planning decisions.
Rather than emphasizing an economic perspective in sport city planning, we suggest that a greater awareness of the potential SBSC provides for a more balanced practitioner and research approach. This approach to sport city planning may not only increase the chances of long-term and sustainable outcomes, but it may also improve the potential for the generation of a wider range of direct and indirect economic benefits. It may also serve to provide a better understanding of the relationship between the economic and social contributions of sport. The SBSC framework has the potential to raise new conceptual, methodical and policy-related questions and stimulate academic and policy debates on social impact considerations in sport city planning.
To improve understanding of the potential social benefits of sport, future research should compare the potential benefits of sport cities across a range of cultural and national contexts. Sport cities and their three variable forms offer such a context. Although still a largely Western phenomenon, the last decade has seen a geographical growth of sport cities in a number of non-Western regions and cities. As a result, the range of political and social environments now exposed to the concept of sport cities has widened significantly. Research opportunities have grown accordingly.
In order to maximize the utility of the SBSC conceptual framework, and to guide future scholars in its use, several areas of future research are suggested, and each builds on the research propositions. The first is to investigate different sport city contexts and whether they demonstrate different social planning priorities. This research direction would provide a better understanding of the global concept of sport cities, and in particular the rise of the concept in non-Western nations. Such research might also expand into the importance of global connectivity as a social benefit in sport city planning. The second suggested area where the SBSC conceptual framework is appropriate is research into the social integration of national sport policy and sport city planning. This has the potential to reveal the national–local divide in sport city social planning decisions. Finally, a third suggestion for future research is to apply the SBSC conceptual framework in part, drilling down into the specifics of selected categories. For example, future research could apply each of the five social benefits categories to explore areas such as the integration of culture as a social benefit in sport city planning, and the direct contribution of sport cities to city livability.
The use of sport in public policy now offers nuances and variety that just a decade or so ago did not exist. The SBSC conceptual framework is a starting point, bringing together two hitherto disconnected literatures on the social benefits of sport and urban planning/ livability. It, therefore, provides a new perspective in sport city planning research, and to this end we encourage its wider application, development and modification.