LT2E06N-02-2007

50 %
50 %
Information about LT2E06N-02-2007
Sports

Published on December 10, 2008

Author: aSGuest5928

Source: authorstream.com

LT2E06NSports Management : 1 LT2E06NSports Management Lecture 2 Sports Facilities Management 1 LT2E06NSports Management : 2 LT2E06NSports Management Planning for Sports Provision The aims of recreational planning : 3 The aims of recreational planning The planner’s objective is to provide : the right facilities in the best location and at the right time for the people who need them, and at acceptable cost (Torkildsen, 1992) Four broad approaches to making recreational provision: : 4 Four broad approaches to making recreational provision: Supply-led: Making use of existing, generally natural, resources (e.g., urban parks, water, woodland) Demand-led: When it is possible to quantify need and relate it to population (e.g., indoor sport and recreation facilities) Opportunity-led: When demand cannot readily be quantified but an opportunity presents itself (e.g., contaminated land, disused gravel workings) Design-led: Where demand cannot readily be quantified but the main purpose is to enhance amenity (e.g., civic spaces in town centres may incorporate ‘showpiece’ sports facility) Planning and policy considerations : 5 Planning and policy considerations Planning is a regulatory process Should not occur piecemeal, but should translate long-term policy into practice Strategic planning – occurs at a range of levels (national, regional, local) UK public sector responsibility for planning : 6 UK public sector responsibility for planning ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (formerly DETR, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions) (Governmental level) Structure Plans: County and Regional Authorities Local Plans: District / Borough Authorities (local planning control) More recently - Unitary Authorities – UDPs (Unitary Development Plans) Levels of decision-making in recreational planning : 7 Levels of decision-making in recreational planning LAND USE PLANNING (Level 1) Formulates developmental plans and policies Determines planning applications and appeals STRATEGIC SPORT AND RECREATION PLANNING (Level 2) Prepares broad sports and recreation strategies Develops specific strategies for particular sports FACILITY PROVISION AND DEVELOPMENT (Level 3) Develops all types of new sports facilities Examples of these levels : 8 Examples of these levels Level 1 (Governmental/ Quango) ODPM PPG17 ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (HMSO, 2002) [Planning Policy Guidance Notes] ‘A Sporting Future for All: the Government’s Plan for Sport’ (HMSO, 2001) ‘Best Value Through Sport: Planning Across Boundaries’ (Sport England, 1999) Examples of these levels : 9 Examples of these levels Level 2 (Regional and Local Authorities) Structure Plans and Local Plans Nottinghamshire County Council ‘Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan Issues Report 2002’ Issue SR2, ‘Opportunities for Sport and Recreation’ www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk Level 3 (Architects, Designers and Contractors) Facility Planning, Design and Construction Typology of Sports Facilities : 10 Typology of Sports Facilities Recreational planning remitShould answer the following questions for proposed new facilities: : 11 Recreational planning remitShould answer the following questions for proposed new facilities: Are the facilities needed? Where should they be located? What impact will a new facility have on an existing one? What is the likely catchment area for the facility? What is the likely demand? Practical PlanningModels and methods : 12 Practical PlanningModels and methods Models of various kinds are commonly used to try to establish a rational basis for planning Models in common use include: ‘Standards’ approach Hierarchical models Spatial approaches ‘Grid matrix’ approach Community-based models Sports Council Facilities Planning Model ‘Standards’ approaches – aims and advantages : 13 ‘Standards’ approaches – aims and advantages Seek to establish a prescribed level of facilities per head of population in a given area Are useful when they are based on sound methodology and known usage patterns, and when applied flexibly Give yardsticks against which to measure existing provision Cover most facility types operated by local authorities Have the apparent advantages of simplicity, efficiency and equity Intended to result in uniformity of provision across the country as a whole (but that may not always be appropriate!) ‘Standards’ approaches – disadvantages : 14 ‘Standards’ approaches – disadvantages Institutionalised – once agreed upon become established, and difficult to displace Variable – different agencies offer different standards for the same type of provision Lack validity – are based on participation rates, but these vary widely in different areas and are often a function of supply Can be misinterpreted and result in provision unrelated to what the community actually wants ‘Standards’ approaches – disadvantages : 15 ‘Standards’ approaches – disadvantages Quantitative – measure number of facilities and available space, but say nothing about the quality of provision Take no account of the sports potential of specific areas – local needs, priorities, differences, environments and conditions For many newer sports and facility types, and those located in the commercial sector particularly, no standards exist Hierarchical models : 16 Hierarchical models The ‘hierarchy of facilities’ approach is a modification of the ‘standards approach’ Proposes a range of complementary facilities scaled to reflect the size of the local population An approach much used in New Towns and in small communities Again, seeks to establish a relatively uniform standard of provision Hierarchical models - disadvantages : 17 Hierarchical models - disadvantages Similar disadvantages to those of the ‘standards’ approach But in addition, when a facility exceeds a certain size, it often draws from a proportionally wider catchment In consequence, its usage is not confined to local people – so ‘local ownership’ can be lost Models based on participation data : 18 Models based on participation data Large-scale national or regional surveys of participation rates can be used to assess potential demand e.g. General Household Survey (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) Target Group Index (TGI) (British Market Research Bureau) Example: Assessment of probable demand for squash courts How many squash courts should be provided to meet the needs of 50,000 people? : 19 How many squash courts should be provided to meet the needs of 50,000 people? GHS data show squash is played, nationally, by 2.4% of the population, once per week So [2.4% (participation rate) x 50,000 (population) x 1 (weekly frequency)] ÷ 2 (players per game) = 600 games per week Assume capacity of squash court to be 14 hrs/day x 7 days/wk x 1.5 games/hr x 65% level of utilisation = 95 games/wk No of courts required = 600 ÷ 95 = 6 courts Difficulties in using survey data : 20 Difficulties in using survey data Quality and reliability of the data originally collected - how were the questions asked? Levels of participation depend on the level of existing provision – does not reflect deferred demand National data may not be applicable regionally or locally It is possible however, where data is available, to use a similar approach based on regional sources Can also be combined with spatial approaches in known catchment areas Not applicable to minority sports – don’t feature in surveys, or data unreliable Spatial approaches : 21 Spatial approaches Based on user surveys, spatial approaches seek to define the catchment area of a sports facility Expressed in terms of concentric circles based on physical distance, or travelling times The geographical area served by the facility can be defined, and overlap with the catchment of other facilities identified Takes account of facility distribution Aims to achieve ‘spatial equity’ Difficulties with spatial approaches : 22 Difficulties with spatial approaches Indicates attendance / travelling patterns, but doesn’t consider: quality of existing facility if there already is spare capacity, or, conversely, whether demand for use exceeds supply Assumes that density of the population is evenly distributed (seldom true) Catchments are not necessarily circular – distorted by many factors (rivers, railway lines, motorways) Similar sized catchments may not be equivalent – can be differences in density, affluence, mobility and social composition Grid matrix approaches : 23 Grid matrix approaches Takes account of existing provision Plots it on a two-dimensional checklist or “grid” Allows planners to identify ‘gaps’ Seeks to fill gaps But also to avoid over-provision A management technique more than a planning approach, but can assist planning decisions Community based approaches : 24 Community based approaches Involves extensive local “grassroots” consultation as an essential part of the planning process Uses input from surveys and user groups to inform decision-making “Bottom-up”, not “top-down” Encourages a sense of local ownership of the facility This can facilitate subsequent management Sports Council Facilities Planning Model(See handout issued in class) : 25 Sports Council Facilities Planning Model(See handout issued in class) A computerised planning model which attempts to accurately assess the need for sports and recreation facilities at community level Initially developed in the 1980s by Scottish Sports Council and the Planning Data Management Service of the University of Edinburgh Seeks to compare demand with supply using the same unit of measurement – the number of visits per week at peak times Sports Council Facilities Planning ModelBenefits : 26 Sports Council Facilities Planning ModelBenefits Based on known participation rates in sports activities (some national, some local) Demand assessment is based on the resident population demography The planning method is consistent at all geographical scales (national, regional and local) The planning method is consistent for a range of different facility types The method can be applied in rural areas Sports Council Facilities Planning ModelLimitations : 27 Sports Council Facilities Planning ModelLimitations Cannot assess tourist demand, since is based on the resident population Can evaluate information, and assess probable demand, but cannot determine policy (it is a tool to aid decision-making) Cannot assess demand for facilities based on natural resources (mountains, water, air) since these are of necessity determined by the resource location Needs much care in data assembly from existing facilities if it is to prove reliable Recommended reading : 28 Recommended reading Ravenscroft, N. (1992) ‘Recreation Planning and Development’ Basingstoke: Macmillan Veal, A.J. (1994) ‘Leisure Policy and Planning’ Harlow: Longman / ILAM Sports Council (1992) ‘Planning and Provision for Sport’ (Factfile 2) London: The Sports Council Elson, M.J. (1995) ‘Good Practice in the Planning and Management of Sport and Active Recreation’ London: The Sports Council Elson, M.J. and Payne, D. (1993) ‘Planning Obligations for Sport and Recreation: A Guide for Negotiation and Action’ London: The Sports Council

Add a comment

Related presentations