منافع اجتماعی در برنامه ریزی شهری ورزشی – ارائه یک چارچوب مفهومی

ABSTRACT The social benefits in sport city planning a conceptual framework

In this paper we seek to better understand how and to what extent social benefits have been considered in the planning of ‘sport cities’. The label ‘sport city’ has predominantly been applied to Western cities such as Indianapolis, Melbourne and Sheffield, but it has also included cities in other regions of the world, such as Singapore, Doha and Dubai. Sport cities represent one of the latest manifestations of a growing global sports economy, and the label has typically been applied in three ways: to rationalize the costs of building new sporting infrastructure, to extend the economic benefit from major sport event (MSE) legacies or as a city branding venture (Smith 2010). Sport has increasingly been viewed by governments in economic terms (Gratton, Shibli, and Coleman 2006), yet there is evidence of a growing social awareness of sports’ potential (Coalter 2007b, 2010). This research is therefore timely. It comes at a point when there has been little research into the social benefits of sport cities (SBSCs), and less still from the perspective of their ‘social benefit’ planning. This planning, or lack thereof, has implications for practitioners. If an outcome is not strategically planned for, the likelihood of it occurring is reduced (Beesley and Chalip 2011; Ritchie 2000). We begin by exploring the sport city literature, and critically interpreting the potential contribution that two fields of research may have on sport city development. The first field we draw on is research that explores the social contribution of sport. The second is the field of urban planning and city livability. The relationship between these fields was recognized by Coaffee and Shaw (2005) who suggested that

This paper acknowledges that sport has the potential to provide positive social benefits, as well as the potential for negative outcomes. The research confines itself to the field of sport city planning and provides examples of ‘planned for’ social benefits. It uses examples where that planning has included either the provision of positive social benefits, or the reduction of negative social outcomes. Managerial definitions of planning refer to planning as an activity of processes and outcomes (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2014; Online Business Directory 2014). The outcomes sought are generally positive, and therefore rather than providing a critical analysis of the positive and negative social aspects of sport, this research confines itself to the positive planned outcomes in sport city planning.

Using our analysis of relevant literature, we introduce a new conceptual framework. The framework makes three significant contributions. First, it provides a means through which we can critically interpret the social aspects of sport city planning, whether social benefits were considered in the planning process, and what form that planning took. Second, the conceptual framework provides a way to better explore if and how the social benefits of sport are interpreted and used in public policy and in public–private partnerships. Third, it provides a foundation for future analysis that can be developed through further research. The paper continues with a discussion of five research propositions that emerged from the literature, and concludes with an acknowledgement of the research limitations.