Leveraging Parasport Events for Sustainable Community Par8cipa8on:
The Case of Glasgow 2014
Funding for this project provided by:
Dr. Laura Misener Dr. Gayle McPherson Dr. David McGillivray Dr. David Legg
Key Ques8on
• How can sport events be u9lized to posi9vely influence communi9es?
1) influence accessibility and enhance awareness about disability; and 2) increase opportuni9es for parasport par9cipa9on.
Context
• UN Conven8on on the Rights of Persons with a Disability: “persons with a disability should have the right to par9cipate on an equal basis in community life including recrea%onal, leisure and spor%ng ac%vi%es” (UN, 2009)
• Scarcity of research focusing on events of any size and scale for persons with a disability
(Misener, Darcy, Legg, & Gilbert, 2013)
Barriers to Par8cipa8on
• Need for assistance • Need for specialized equipment • Lack of understanding and awareness of how to include people with a disability in sport;
• *Limited opportuni9es and programs for par9cipa9on, training and compe99on;
• *Lack of accessible facili9es; • *Limited accessible transporta9on; and • Limited access to informa9on and resources
(Depauw & Gavron, 2005; HRSDC, 2011)
Research aim & objec8ves
Research Aim: ² To examine how the hos9ng of different forms of sport events
for persons with a disability are being leveraged to create opportuni9es for community par9cipa9on, and influence community a]tudes towards disability
Research Objec9ves: ² Compare and contrast social legacy tac9cs, strategies, and
programmes ² Analyze spectator, volunteer, and community members’
a]tudes and awareness of disability ² Develop framework for leveraging parasport events to benefit
par9cipa9on opportuni9es
Sport Event Legacies Legacy has been viewed predominantly in a posi9ve light where,
… the term is used by organizing commibees, it is assumed to be en9rely posi9ve, there being no such thing as nega9ve legacy when used in this context. [Secondly,] it is usually believed that legacy benefits flow to a community at the end of the Games as a maber of course. (Cashman, 2005, p. 15)
From impact…
EVENT
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
Legacy…
EXISTING Resources
… to Leverage
EVENT
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
PLAN
IMPLEMENT
Taks, Misener, Chalip, & Green, 2012
Parasport Legacy Research
‘‘Events and the opportuni%es they present are merely the seed capital; what hosts do with that capital is the key to realizing
sustainable longer-‐term legacies” (O’Brien, 2006: p. 258)
Focus • A]tudes: A more posi9ve a]tude toward traits or behaviors, or not underes9ma9ng the poten9al quality of life of those with impairments
• Social support: resources, aids or posi9ve discrimina9on to overcome them (e.g. providing a buddy to explain work culture for an employee with au9sm)
• Informa9on: Using suitable formats (e.g. braille) or levels (e.g. simplicity of language) or coverage (e.g. explaining issues others may take for granted),
• Physical structures: Universal Design
Commonwealth Games 2014 & ParaPan American Games 2015
Glasgow, Scotland (July 23-‐Aug 3, 2014) ➺ 5 parasports, 22 parasport medal events ➺ Athle9cs, Swimming, Powerlioing, Lawn Bowls and Track Cycling
➺ Parasport athletes integrated ➺ Legacy planning as a general process
Toronto, Canada (Aug 6 – Aug 15, 2015) ➺ 15 parasport events ➺ Parasport athletes separated by 9me and space ➺ Dis%nct Legacy planning for Pan and Parapan Games
Research Methodology Type of Evidence Glasgow 2014 ParaPan Am Games 2015
Documenta9on Bid Documents Glasgow City Council/ScoVsh Legacy Framework
Bid Documents Social Capital Strategy Evalua9on Reports
Physical Ar9facts Media Reports Marke8ng and Promo8onal Materials (Brochures, posters)
Media Reports Marke9ng and Promo9onal Materials (Brochures, posters)
Direct Observa9on
Observa8on of Glasgow 2014 parasport sport events
Observa9ons of Toronto 2015 Parapan sport events
Semi-‐structured Interviews
20 Strategic interviews (OC, policy, disability sport)
Strategic interview
Targeted Interviews: On-‐site Surveys w/ volunteers & spectators
Scale of AVtudes towards Disabled Persons Glasgow Household Survey
Scale of A]tudes towards Disabled Persons
� Legacies will be felt throughout the pathway
because of… ² Accessibility ² Games-‐9me ² Policy ² Educa9on
Accessibility
Accessibility ² Games venue accessibility exemplary (sea9ng 1.5 9mes IPC) ² Games-‐9me experience of integrated events a great success:
sensi9ve programming, explana9on of classifica9ons, knowledgeable audiences
² Travel and transport adequate – though pre-‐Games concern ² Permanent improvements to some venues – planned legacies
(e.g. Hampden Park) ‘Hope’ that the physical accessibility of the venues…may encourage people to come along and go to these places again (Accessibility &
Inclusion Mgr, G2014)
Games-‐9me • Emphasis on quan9ty and quality of parasport compe99on
and 9me to prepare (22 medal events) ² G2014 Ltd demonstrated strategic leadership in the sphere of
parasport and wider advocacy for disability issues ² BUT, recogni9on of Games delivery responsibility and limits of
legacy expecta9ons We liquidate and wrap up the company in just a year’s %me. We do enable it (legacy), we do support it, we do feed the beast…so it’s important that decisions we make have a direct impact on
the success (CEO, G2014)
Concrete strategies/plans
v Physical Educa9on Disability Inclusion; support coaches in Disability training SDS, targeted the 5 parasports. (Sco]sh Disability Sport)
v Develop enhanced pathways, Regional coordinators, support local clubs and secure beber monitoring/evalua9on (baseline) data
v £6 million investment in dedicated parasport facility v BUT diversion of resources away from established
programming in favour of Games sports (e.g. powerlioing)
Games / Volunteers
• Posi9ve Pre-‐Games A]tudes (12 items; a=.74; μ=5.52)
• High Levels of Awareness (4 items; α = .88; μ=4.9)
Games / Awareness
F(5, 2628) = 2.50, p = .029
� Pre-‐Games training; integrated marke9ng; messaging
Pre-‐Post: Did the Games make a difference?
• Awareness of Integrated Event – Females Time 1: = 4.88, Females Time 2 = 6.14 (p = .00)
Significant increase in awareness post – Males Time 1: = 5.07, Males Time 2 = 6.08 (p = .00)
Significant increase in awareness pre-‐post
• A]tudes – Females Time 1: 5.83, Females Time 2 = 6.02 (p = .00)
Significant increase in aVtudes pre-‐post
– Males Time 1: 5.67, Males Time 2 = 5.89 (p = .00) Significant increase in aVtudes pre-‐post
Spectators • Lower levels of awareness; less posi9ve global a]tudes
• High interest in disability sport • 70% Games did not change a]tude towards disability
Headline Findings: Sustaining legacies v The absence of ‘specific’, ‘iden9fiable’ and ‘resourced’ strategies,
tac9cs and programmes beyond the Games
² G2014 provided role models & posi9ve media coverage BUT choice of parasports does not map easily onto host country sport par9cipa9on or development pathways
² Limited investment to address the ‘mundane’, ‘everyday’ barriers to sustained community par9cipa9on:
² Pathways, coaching, transport, pricing, equipment
Conclusions and next steps
² Growing recogni9on of importance of social legacies ² Leadership is vital but Games-‐9me effect needs to pass to na9onal and local agencies
² Regional sport likely benefits most ² Na9onal investment for elite parasport but, where is the broader sport development infrastructure and coaching network to support that investment?
² Leveraging…
Leveraging Parasport Events for Sustainable Community
Participation: The Case of Glasgow 2014
Funding for this project provided by:
Dr. Laura Misener Dr. Gayle McPherson Dr. David McGillivray Dr. David Legg