There were also other results from the interview data that, whilst not common to all or even most of the MASS organisations, nevertheless were noteworthy. For example, an issue reported by a minority of MASS cases was vulnerability to climate change and here the results are somewhat contradictory. Whilst all MASS organisations reported extreme weather events such as drought, and associated water issues, only two felt vulnerable (H, K). Case K also reported that their stadium was vulnerable to lower rainfall because they did not have enough water storage capacity to supply all their water needs during extended drought periods.
By contrast, vulnerability’s antithesis – resilience – was frequently reported. Nine of the twelve MASS cases (seventy-five per cent) reported that their stadia were resilient to climate change (Cases A, B, C, D, E, G, I, J, & L). This meant that resilience to climate change was reported in each of the three theoretical categories identified for this study. However, given the significance of water issues to MASS identified previously, the degree to which these organisations have developed resilience to drought related to climate change because of their investment in water-saving infrastructure will be discussed in the next chapter. Finally, Case F reported their stadium being “somewhat resilient.” A summary of resilience reported is presented in Table 15 below.
Table 15: Resilience to climate change reported by MASS organisations
VARIABLES
MASS CASES REPORTING VULNERABIITY OR RESILIENCE TO
CLIMATE CHANGE MANAGERS MASS
REPORTING THIS (N = 15) Category 1 - Publically-owned, not-for-profit Category 2 - Privately-owned, not-for-profit Category 3 - Privately-owned, for-profit
MASS cases reporting resilience
to climate change (n = 9) A, D, E, I, J B, G C, L
A1, A2, A3, B1, C1, D2, E1, G1, I1, J1, L1 MASS cases reporting being
vulnerable to climate change (n = 2)
H, K H1, K1, K2
MASS cases reporting being somewhat vulnerable to climate change
(n = 1)
F F1
TOTALS 5 4 3 15
The disparity between the reporting of resilience to the physical impacts of climate change and the reporting of vulnerability, is an interesting point. Whilst it may be true that seventy-five per cent of these stadia are resilient to such impacts, there is at least the potential for this to be an example of a “socially desirable” response bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Such bias is particularly associated with “face-to-face” interviews of the kind used in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 885). Equally, as climate change vulnerability and resilience were concepts raised by the interviewer, there was potential for it to be an example of “measurement item” bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). That is, it is possible that reporting “resilience” was perceived by some of the respondents to be more desirable than reporting “vulnerability.” However, one valid “procedural remedy” for such a potential problem is to “protect respondent anonymity and reduc[e] evaluation apprehension” (2003, p. 888; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012, p. 562), a procedure that was followed for this study. By assuring the respondents to this study prior to the interviews that there were no “right or wrong answers” and that they should “answer the questions as honestly as possible”, they were less likely to “edit their responses” to make them socially desirable. Where possible, the use of multiple respondents and/or secondary sources was another procedure adopted (Podsakoff et al., 2003;
Podsakoff et al., 2012, p. 548). As a consequence, it is reasonable to be confident in this finding about resilience.
One point of physical vulnerability to climate change identified by one of the MASS organisations that was noteworthy was that of the grass playing surface to increased evaporation of water. Case E reported that, due to a warming climate in Australia, they had experienced increased rates of evaporation of water that they used to grow the grass playing surface of their stadium. The senior manager who reported this directly linked this increased evaporation to climate change. When asked
whether the climate in the city in which his stadium was located was changing, he reported the following:
The thing that we notice more than anything else with turf and some of those things on the ground is the level of evaporation we have. The humidity is much lower than what it was, we’ve got drying days here that, and it’s something, it’s a subject that never gets talked about in terms of environmental change. People talk about ºC increase and some of those things, but the air is much dryer, so... the way we apply water to the turf’s surface, we know how much evaporation occurs on a daily basis and we put 75 per cent of that water back fundamentally. We’re putting more water on than what we ever have in terms of that because the evaporation levels are so high (E1, p. 9).
Similarly, Case H alluded to evaporation as an issue:
As it gets drier we need to water more, as we water more it increases the costs and it’s not just a standard. As it’s getting hotter, we have to water more (H1, p. 2).
Although no other MASS managers reported increased water evaporation caused by climate change as an issue, these remarks highlight a vulnerability for MASS organisations over the mid-to-long term.
The vulnerability of grass playing surfaces to periods of extreme heat that may be associated with climate change was identified in five cases. For example, Manager F1 reported:
As far as temperatures, our number one asset I would argue is our playing surface... We’ve got rye grass at the venue. The plant shuts down at around 28 ºC, so it’s difficult to grow grass if the climate is increasing and the plant has actually shut down that whole time because it can’t process it because it’s too hot (F1, pp. 7-8).
Case J also reported changing the type of grass used on their playing surface in recent years from, “a really thirsty ryegrass to drought tolerant couch grass” (J1, p. 2). Other cases also reported that they may have to change the type of grass on their playing surface if higher average temperatures were to persist (A, D & H).
Another climate issue highlighted by only one MASS case was the reluctance of some key stadium stakeholders to address climate change. Case E reported that some sport organisations that used their stadium were unwilling to do more about climate change:
...our major sporting providers into this venue, we would want them to have some
responsibility about environmental initiatives, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. I mean they don’t do..., we don’t think they do enough [that is] meaningful. When you have a look at venues, when you understand players flying all around the country or flying interstate to do other things all the time and that sort of component gets forgotten about. Hotel nights, the patrons come to a game and gets spent in a city that have a carbon impact. Where some of our primary sporting bodies ignore all of that, they’ll say, “Well that’s outside of our control. What we will do is we will pay an energy supply company to offset 50 per cent of the energy usage of the venue for one event.” Big deal! I mean it’s not a sustainable or responsible outcome we don’t think. So we’re trying to convince them that they should be doing more, but as with a lot of organisations it’s, they see it as probably taking dollars off their bottom line. So it becomes a bit difficult at times unless there’s enough incentive for them to do that. Our view is public pressure would be one of those incentives. We have with this venue, and a lot of other venues that
are such a high energy use when these things are lit up at night, with light towers on I mean it’s just as much this code’s responsibility as ours (E1, p. 5).
This quote gives an insight into how the financial costs of mitigating direct or indirect GHG emissions are a crucial barrier for national sport organisations and, organisations that manage MASS. Case E also reported that some other major sport stadia were reluctant to do more about climate change, and that to a degree, this was tied to uncertainty about government policy. When asked why this was the case, he suggested the following:
[E1]: I think it’s a minimalist attitude. [Interviewer]: Minimalist?
[E1]: I think it’ll be about, “What does the legislation say we have to do? What do the laws of the land say we have to do?” and, “Do we need to do any more than that?” And I think their answer to both of those is, “Well there’s some confusion about what the laws of land are, if there’s going to be a carbon tax and the government’s not setting strong definite targets at the moment...” Every time the US [United States] government, and our government, and world governments start to hesitate about what future [GHG reduction] targets should be, it gives a lot of organisations an out clause I think not to do [reduce] carbon emission[s]. And I think a lot of organisations are waiting to see what the world sort of policy becomes before they act, and I think they’re using just, “What, we’re doing. What we’re supposed to do. We’ll put enough advertising spin on it so that it sounds a little more than what it really is”, and, “That’ll do us.” But I think unless there’s some legislation around…let me give you an example. A few years ago, I mean in Europe about stadiums and waste management and some of those things, it wasn’t until legislation was brought in that you had to recycle 80 per cent of your waste from your stadium, had to be recycled, could not go to landfill. It was only at that point that stadiums actually put some time, effort into this to make sure that happened. Before that there was lots of rubbish going to landfill. So unless it’s legislated, I think it’ll be really difficult to actually get any meaningful [GHG] reductions out of this (E1, pp. 5-6).
This passage highlights the impact of recent failures to achieve international and national agreement to reduce GHG emissions on organisations. In particular, it highlights a “wait and see” attitude where organisations are waiting for a clearer policy direction from government before contemplating – and taking – more action to reduce direct or indirect GHG emissions. This passage also highlights the key role that government regulation plays in shaping the responses of major stadia to environmental issues.