The Environmental Impacts of Major Cycling Events ...orca-mwe.cf.ac.uk/53325/1/Tour-de-France.pdf · Cup, Edinburgh Festival, London Freewheel and the Tour of Britain. ContactDetails

The Environmental Impacts ofMajor Cycling Events:Reflections on the UK Stagesof the Tour de France

2

Report Authors

Dr. Andrea Collins is a Research Fellow at Cardiff University’s School of Planningand Geography. She has interests in ecological footprinting and assessing theimpacts and legacies of major events. She has been involved in a series ofstudies which have examined the environmental impacts of tourism, majorevents and festivals.

Dr. Annette Roberts is Deputy Director of the Welsh Economy Research Unit atCardiff University’s Business School. She has interests in regional economicsand regional economic modelling. She has been involved in a series of studieswhich have examined the economic and environmental impacts of tourism.

Prof. Max Munday is Director of the Welsh Economy Research Unit at CardiffUniversity’s Business School. He has interests in the economic effects of tourismactivity, and is currently examining methods to establish the value of tourismfootprints for UK regions.

The research team has undertaken impact assessment studies of other majorUK events including the FA Cup Final, RBS Six Nations Rugby Championships,Wales Rally GB, Brecon Jazz Festival, Isle of Wight Festival, Junior Rugby WorldCup, Edinburgh Festival, London Freewheel and the Tour of Britain.

Contact DetailsDr. Andrea CollinsTel:+44(0)29 20870279Email: [email protected] of Planning and Geography,Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building,King Edward VII Avenue,Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF10 3WA

Cardiff University, 2012

AcknowledgementsIn preparing this report we are grateful to all those spectators who took part inthe survey, and to Transport for London for providing estimates of visitor figuresof the UK stages of the 2007 Tour de France. We would also like to acknowledgethe support of the ESRC’s BRASS Research Centre at Cardiff University, whoprovided the funding for this research.

This study aims to help answer thisquestion by assessing the economicand environmental impacts of the 2007Tour de France Grand Depart inLondon and Kent (South East ofEngland).

The research involved conductingface-to face surveys with over 1,400spectators who attended the GrandDepart at key locations in London andKent. The survey was used to collectinformation on spectators’ duration ofvisit, travel and spending on a range ofitems and activities.

Transport for London estimated that2.85 million spectators attended thevarious Grand Depart events. As theGrand Depart is a multi-stage event,taking place over three days indifferent locations, it is likely thatsome spectators attended more thanone event. This estimate was adjustedfor double-counting in order to avoidoverestimating impacts.

The main findings from the researchare:

• The largest spectator spending wason food and drink, transport andaccommodation. The (net) directspectator spending impact on the UKwas estimated to be almost £80m.

• The total economic impact of theevent on the UK economy wasestimated to be almost £150m, and2,000 (full-time equivalent) jobs.

• The environmental impact of theevent was estimated by calculatingits ‘ecological footprint’. This is theland area required to support theresource demands andconsumption patterns of thespectators, and is measured interms of ‘global hectares’. The totalFootprint was estimated to be57,990 global hectares. This isequivalent to 143 times the area ofLondon’s Olympic Park.

• The ecological footprint of theaverage spectator at the GrandDepart was almost 2.2 timesgreater than if they had not attendedthe event and gone about theirregular everyday activities at home.

• The main contributor to theecological footprint was travel. Theaverage spectator travelled 734kilometres to watch the event.Almost 59% of the total distancetravelled was by air (largelyinternational air travel), whichadded significantly to the overallFootprint. Other key contributorswere rail, coach and car travel.

This research highlights that therewere significant economic impactsassociated with the Grand Depart.However, the consumption patterns ofspectators at the event were found tobe significantly different to behaviourswhilst at home, and so also generatedlarge environmental impacts. Theresearch enabled the ‘big hitters’ in

Governments, other agencies and authoritiesactively encourage cycling for transport andleisure, as it is considered to offer significantenvironmental and health benefits.

However, how ‘green’ is cycling when it becomesthe focus of the largest annual sporting event inthe world?

3

Executive Summary

terms of environmental impact to beidentified, and so provide policyrelevant information which could beused to help target and minimise theenvironmental impacts of futureevents. The study provides a moreholistic appreciation of the impactsthat can result from major events, andwe recommend that this type ofevaluation should feature moreregularly in event impact andevaluation studies.

4

The Environmental Impacts ofMajor Cycling Events:Reflections on the UK Stagesof the Tour de France

4

ContentsIntroduction 6

Tour de France:The World’s Most Popular Annual Sporting Event 7

London’s Bid to Host the2007 Tour de France Grand Depart 8

The 2007 Tour de France Grand Depart 9

The Research 10

FindingsEconomic Impacts 12Environmental Impacts 16Other Findings 18

Conclusions and Recommendations 19

References 20

6

Major sporting events are a key part ofeconomic and tourism strategies forcities, regions and countries acrossthe world. One reason behind thisincreased attention is based on apresumption that they can generate asignificant number of economicbenefits, prestige and media coverage.The UK has a wealth of experience inbidding for and hosting major events.Recent examples include the 2000Rugby World Cup, Ryder Cup,Commonwealth Games (Manchesterand Glasgow), 2012 Summer Olympicand Paralympic Games.

Cycling is considered to offersignificant environmental and healthbenefits, but how ‘green’ is it when itbecomes the focus of the largestannual sporting event in the world?

Major sport events can generateeconomic impacts, however theconsumption behaviours of spectatorscan also result in significantenvironmental impacts. For example,how spectators travel to an event, thetype of food and drink they purchase,the length of time that they stay, theirpreferred choice of overnightaccommodation, whether or not theychoose to recycle, or undertake otheractivities during their visit. Typicalspectator activities at an event can inturn result in an ‘environmental’ aswell as ‘economic’ impact. There arechallenges in examining theenvironmental footprint of majorevents. This report aims to understandthe scale of an event environmentalfootprint and its key contributors. Inplanning major events, UKstakeholders need to betterunderstand the comparative scale ofthe economic and environmental

impact. In particular, this study aimedto investigate the following:

• What are the economic effectsassociated with spectatorsattending a major event?

• What are the environmentalimpacts associated with spectatorsattending a major event?

• What consumption behaviours ofspectators have the largestenvironmental impacts?

• How significant is spectator travelin terms of the overallenvironmental impact of an event?

The research presented in this reportfocuses on the case of the 2007 Tourde France Grand Depart. However, thefindings provide insights into the typesof economic and environmentalimpacts which can result from hostingmajor events.

This research was carried out byAndrea Collins, Annette Roberts andMax Munday with the support of theESRC BRASS Research Centre atCardiff University. This report providesa summary of the key findings fromthat research. A detailed description ofthe research methodology and theresearch findings was published in theJournal of Travel Research in 2012.(see Collins et al, 2012).

The Environmental Impactsof Major Cycling Events:Reflections on the UK Stagesof the Tour de France

Introduction

7

Tour de France:The World’s Most PopularAnnual Sporting EventThe Tour de France began in 1903 asan amateur cycling competition. Sincethen it has become the most well-known and prestigious annual globalsporting event, attracting riders andteams from around the world. TheTour is currently owned and organisedby Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO)(part of the French media groupÈditions Philippe Amaury), who alsoorganise a number of other sportingevents including the Paris-Niceprofessional cycling road race, theDakar Rally, Paris Marathon, goldFrench Open and a number ofequestrian events.

The Tour is a free public and non-ticketed event, and annually attractsan estimated 2 billion spectators. Aunique aspect of the event is that itdoes not take place in a stadium, nordoes it require any new permanentinfrastructure, a prerequisite ofsuccessful bids to stage events suchas the Olympic Games.

The Tour is an itinerant event andmoves between towns and cities. Ittypically lasts 3 weeks, covers over3,500km, and has racing and time trialstages. The Tour largely takes place inFrance, but stages have previouslybeen undertaken in neighbouringcountries such as Belgium, Germany,Ireland, Luxembourg, Monaco,Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.Prior to the 2007 Grand Depart, theTour had visited the UK twice. The firstin 1974 was a relatively low key stagein Plymouth, while the second visit in1994 attracted an estimated 3 millionspectators along a route betweenDover and Portsmouth.

There is strong competition to host astage of the Tour de France, andseveral UK cities and regions arebidding to host stages in the future.Although a host pays ASO a significantsum for the privilege to host a stage1,there are a number of expectedbenefits including prestige, economicbenefits and media coverage. Forexample, Desbordes (2007) estimatedthat the city of Digne (France) inhosting the 12th stage of the 2005 Tourinjected some 326 000 Euros into thelocal economy. However, this reportedfigure of economic impact is likely tobe an underestimate as it did notaccount for all areas of spectatorconsumption, nor did it include theadditional economic benefits that weregenerated by raising the city’s profilethrough the increased media attention.

1For example, Reims (France) paid ASO €88,000to host the arrival of Stage 3 of the Tour in 2002.

8

S

S

S

4

4

St James’sPalace

TowerBridge

0kmGreenwich

Woolwich Plumstead

31kmGravesend

Higham

14kmErith

20kmDartford

Strood

Rochester

47km

Sprint 3

Medway

Sprint 2

Teston

67kmMaidstone

PROCESSION

OFFICIALCEREMONY

OFFICIALRACE START

Sprint 1

Tenterden

King of the Mountains 2

Goudhurst Hill - Goudhurst


Quarry Hill - Tonbridge

94km

Tonbridge

97km

TunbridgeWells

Palmer’sGreen

Horsmonden

Spelmonden

Goudhurst

121km

Sissinghurst

141kmTenterden

St Michaels

Bethersden

A200

A206 A206

A226

A226

A2

29

A26

A264

A228

A262

A28

A28

London’s Bid to Host the 2007Tour de France Grand DepartIn January 2006, Ken Livingstone theMayor of London, announced thatLondon and Kent would play host tothe start of the 94th Tour de Francebetween 6-8th July 2007. Hosting theGrand Depart had somewhat of anovelty factor attached to it as afterthe Tour Finale in Paris, the GrandDepart is considered the secondhighest profile stage of the event. Thiswould lend itself to generate greaterprofile and media coverageopportunities compared to previousUK Tour de France visits.Furthermore, the timing of the GrandDepart would make it the largestmajor sporting event to be held inLondon prior to the 2012 SummerOlympic and Paralympic Games.

There were three key reasons behindLondon’s decision to bid to stage theGrand Depart. First, it would providean opportunity to showcase the capitaland demonstrate its suitability as alocation for staging world-classsporting events. Second, it wasconsidered that the event wouldattract visitors to London and generateadditional expenditure. In a report tothe London Assembly in November2006 – 6 months ahead of the Tour –the Mayor of London reported that anestimated 2 million spectators fromacross the world would visit Londonand Kent to watch the Tour andgenerate ‘an estimated £115 millionboost in tourism revenue’ (KenLivingstone, 2006 page 2).

The third and final objective was tolever ‘legacy’ environmental benefitsfrom the competitive aspect of thesport event by ‘making London a citywhere people of all ages and abilitieshave the incentive, confidence and

facilities to cycle whenever it suits them’(SRA, 2007, page 2) and encouragecycling and promote London as acycle-friendly city.

ASO in awarding London the right tohost the Grand Depart were reportedlynot only attracted by London being oneof the world’s major capital cities, butalso that its local organisers plannedto leverage environmental benefitsfrom the event:

“We are proud that you have chosensuch an important event as the Tour toencourage people to become cyclists -not necessarily champions - but users ofthis marvellous instrument of transportand pleasure that is a symbol offreedom”

(Jean Marie Leblanc, Deputy Directorof ASO, 9 February 2006).

Stage 1

PARKLA

NE

PARKLA

NE

P

P

P

TrafalgarSquare

PiccadillyCircus

LeicesterSquare

CharingCross

Embankment

Westminster

Green Park

St James

BuckinghamPalace St James’s

Park

WestminsterAbbey

Hyde ParkCorner

(access maybe restricted)

Knightsbridge

Hyde Park

WH

ITEH

ALL

VIC

TOR

IAEM

BAN

KM

ENT

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE

BIRDCAGE WALK

THE MALL

THE MALL

THE MALL

HO

RSE

GU

AR

DS

RD

PALL MALL

HAYM

ARKETPICCADILLY

PICCADILL

Y

STRAND

CRO

SSR

D

CHARIN

G

MA

RSH

AM

ST

MILLBA

NK

PETTY FRANCE

VICTORIASTREET

BUCKINGHAMGATE

VICTORIA STREET

NG

HA

MPA

LAC

ERD

KNIGHTSBRIDGE

GROSVEN

OR

PLAC

E

CONSTITUTION HILL

SLOA

NE

STR

EET

SOUTH CARRIAGE DRIVE

SERPENTINE ROAD

The Serpentine

WES

TC

ARR

IAG

ED

RIV

E

KENSINGTON ROAD

Big Ben

9


4


Hempton Hill - Farthing Common

Ashford

Sellinge

183kmFarthing Common

Stowting

203kmCanterbury

STAGEFINISH

A20

42

A20

B2

06

8

The 2007 Tour de FranceGrand Departcapital’s historic landmarks, includingthe Houses of Parliament,Buckingham Palace, Hyde Park andTower Bridge.

Stage 1 of the Tour was held onSunday 8th July, and involved a 203 kmcourse with the peloton3 departingfrom Westminster, passing throughSouth East London (closely followingthe route of the London Marathon),then via Maidstone and RoyalTunbridge Wells, with the finish inCanterbury (Kent).

Along the route of the Prologue andStage 1, large screens wereconstructed at key points forspectators to watch the build up to andthe actual race. The Tour ‘caravane’which preceded the race involved 200vehicles advertising various brands(such as Skoda, Haribo, T-Mobile, TheLaughing Cow, and Sea France) anddistributed an estimated 15 millionfree commercial samples tospectators along the route whichextended their experience of the event(ASO, 2007).

In addition to the competitive raceitself, a number of fringe events wereorganised in London and Kent prior toand during the week of the GrandDepart. These were designed tocomplement the Tour de France,promote cycling more generally andappeal to a range of interests and agegroups. One such event was a freepublic Cycling Festival that was held inLondon’s Hyde Park following thedeparture of the peloton at Stage 1 inLondon.

2This was the same day as the WimbledonChampionship Finals, Live Earth Concert atLondon’s Wembley Arena, and the secondanniversary of the bombing attacks on London’sUnderground.

3The term peloton comes from the French wordmeaning ‘little ball’, and in cycling terms refersto the main group of riders in a road cyclingrace.

The Grand Depart of the 2007 Tour deFrance was held in London and Kenton 7th and 8th July. The race waspreceded by an Opening Ceremony inLondon on Friday 6th July. This was afree public event at London’s TrafalgarSquare to celebrate the Tour’s arrivalin London and promote cycling.

The first day of the Tour (the ‘Prologue’)took place on Saturday 7th July2. Thiswas a 7.9km time trial which featureda flat course around London, startingat Whitehall and passing many of the Prologue

10

The aim of our research was to providean estimate of the economic andenvironmental impacts of spectatorexpenditure and physical consumptionassociated with the 2007 Tour deFrance Grand Depart. The assessmentconsidered both the local and globalenvironmental impacts.

Data used to calculate these impactswere based on a survey of over 1,400spectators at the event. Spectatorswere surveyed at the Prologue(London) and Stage 1 (Kent)4. Resultsfrom both these locations were used toinform estimates of spectatorexpenditure and consumption patternsat the Opening Ceremony and Stage 1in London. The survey covered anumber of issues including: purposeof visit and duration, travel details (toand from and during the event), anddetails of spending on a range of itemsand activities during the visit. Thefollowing table shows the homelocation of spectators that took part inthe survey.

The Grand Depart was a free publicand non ticketed event. Establishingtotal spectator numbers is alwaysdifficult at such events. An estimate ofspectator numbers was provided byTransport for London - who estimatedthat there were 2.85 million spectatorsat the Opening Ceremony, Prologueand Stage 1, with an estimated two-thirds of this figure viewing Stage 1 inLondon and Kent (SRA, 2007).However, as the Grand Depart and theOpening Ceremony was a multi-stageevent and took place over three days indifferent locations, it is likely thatspectators attended more than one ofthe key events. This issue wasaccounted for in the analysis in order

Europe 2.5France 14.3Holland 28.6Germany 14.3Spain 21.4Belgium 7.1Other EuropeanCountries 14.3

Outside Europe 0.9US 40.0South Africa 40.0Canada 20.0Australia 0.0Other 0.0

UK 96.6England 97.6London -Wales 1.8Scotland, N Ireland,IoM and Ci’s 0.6

UK 96.6%

Europe 2.5%

OutsideEurope 0.9%

Europe 4.5France 25.0Holland 19.4Germany 11.1Spain 5.6Belgium 5.6Other EuropeanCountries 33.3

Outside Europe 4.3US 64.7South Africa 0.0Canada 0.0Australia 29.4Other 5.9

UK 91.2England 93.8London 33.3Wales 3.8Scotland, N Ireland,IoM and Ci’s 2.4

UK 91.2%

Europe 4.5%

OutsideEurope 4.3%

to avoid double counting andoverestimating both the economic andenvironmental impacts of the event.

4A total of 827 spectators were surveyed inLondon on Saturday 7th. Locations included thestart and finish line, Whitehall, ParliamentSquare, Buckingham Palace, Constitution Hilland Hyde Park. A total of 578 spectators weresurveyed in the County of Kent on Sunday 8thJuly. Locations included Tunbridge Wells,Tenterden, Ashford and Canterbury.

The Research


11

The Findings


12

The spectator survey was the key information source used to estimate theeconomic impacts of the Grand Depart. The table below provides a summary ofthe results for the two survey locations. Spending on travel is split by UK andnon-UK visitors, as there are significant differences in spending on travelbetween these groups.

The FindingsEconomic Impacts

Prologue (London) 1st Stage (Kent)

Travel (amount per visit)

UK Spectators

Travel to the event £20.40 £9.79

Travel within London (per day) £5.16 -

Non-UK Spectators

Travel to the UK £412.85 £291.64

Travel to event (UK travel) £11.87 £62.69

Accommodation (amount per night)

UK and Non-UK Spectators

Average per spectator (London) £64.66 £70.43

Average per spectator (outside London) £22.662 £50.49

Food and Drink (amount per day)


Breakfast £5.55 £5.20

Evening Mail £16.36 £14.29

Other Items (amount per visit)


Leisure and tourist activities £45.52 £33.90

Merchandise £19.01 £14.70

Retail shopping £55.40 £26.09

Average Spectator Spending by Selected Category at the Surveyed Tour de France Events1

1The results presented in this table relate to the average amount spent by spectators who purchased those items. For some spectators, a number of thespending categories would be zero. A London resident, attending one or more of the events, may have walked or cycled around London, taken their ownfood and not bought any merchandise. As a consequence, the all or full sample averages (used for grossing-up purposes) were considerably lower thanthe figures shown in this table.

2A number of surveyed visitors who were staying outside London on the Saturday evening reported that they would be camping or caravanning.


13

For the Prologue in London, UKspectators spent an average of £20.40on travel to London, and a further£5.16 on travel within London. Averagespending on travel to London by non-UK spectators was an estimated£412.85. This is an average of thevarious expenditures on air travel,boat, train, and cars etc. Whilst inLondon for the Prologue, non-UKspectators spent an average of £11.87on travel.

Accommodation spending for bothevents is shown for stays inside andoutside London. As expected,accommodation spending withinLondon is significantly higher thanthat outside of London.

Food and drink spending on breakfastand evening meals (and on lunch andsnacks, not shown in the table) wasfairly consistent between the twoevents, whilst spending on other items(merchandise, tourism, and

particularly retail shopping) washigher in London than in Kent.

Using Transport for London estimatedspectator figures (adjusted for double-counting) in conjunction with thesurvey data (using the all-sampleaverages, see note 1 to the earlierTable, an estimate was obtained ofgross spectator spending within theUK (spending by non-UK spectators ontravel to the UK was assumed to haveaccrued outside of the UK economy).Gross spectator spending was anestimated £110.4m. The table belowshows that spectators’ largestspending was on food and drink,transport and accommodation. Beforethe economic impacts could beassessed it was necessary to furtheradjust the gross figure to deductspending leakages from the economy.These leakages (imports and taxes)are estimated to be £30.62m, and thefinal row of the table then shows thatthe (net) direct spending estimatewithin the UK was almost £80m.

The next stage of the economic impactestimation process is to incorporatethis spending information within aneconomic model of the UK economy.This allows the indirect or multiplierimpacts of this spending to beestimated. An Input-Output (I-O)model of the UK economy was used,as this enables the impacts ofspending to be traced through varioussectors of the economy andmultipliers to be estimated. Inaddition, by using information onemployment for each UK industry, theemployment impacts (direct andmultiplier) of spectator spending wereestimated.

Item Spending (£m)

Transport 25.09

Accommodation 20.38

Food and drink 25.69

Leisure and tourism 12.34

Merchandise 11.39

Shopping 15.48

Gross spending total 110.37

Imports and taxes 30.62

Total direct spending 79.75

Gross and adjusted spectator spending by item, £m.

14


The Figure shows the direct spendingtotal of £79.75m in the first circle. Thisdirect spending, results in a range ofindirect or multiplier impacts, as thismoney circulates around the economy,being passed from supplier tosupplier. The indirect impact is anestimated £67.77m, and when addedto the direct spending figure gives atotal of £147.52m. This almost £150mof economic impact was estimated tobe associated with just over 2,000(full-time equivalent, FTE) jobs. Thesejobs would not, in reality, be reflectedin an additional 2,000 full-timeworkers within the UK during thatyear, but the number is indicative ofthe additional employment that wouldbe required to support the £150m oftourism demand generated by theevents. The employment effects would,in practice, be more evident throughindividuals working additional hours,and extra workers employed for theevent period.

Direct spectatorspending on UK goodsand services (food,accommodation etc)

£79.75m

Total spending impact

£147.52mEmployment Impact

2000 jobs (ftes)

Multiplier effectsestimated usingUK I-O Model

£67.77m

��

��

The FindingsEconomic Impacts

15

A summary of the ecological footprintresults for the Grand Depart areshown in the following Table. Based onthe analysis of spectators’ physicalconsumption of resources at the event,their ‘footprint’ (or land area) wasestimated to be 57,990 globalhectares. This is equivalent to 143times the area of London’s OlympicPark.

When reflecting on the scale of theecological footprint of such an event, itis useful to compare the figure withwhat spectators’ footprint would havebeen had they not attended the event,but instead went about their regulareveryday activities at home. The studyfound that the ecological footprint ofthe average spectator at the Tour wasalmost 2.2 times greater than if theyhad not attended the event. A keyreason for spectators having a much

Bioproductiveland

Bioproductivesea

Energy land

Built Land

Biodiversity

Category Visitor TotalEcological Footprint(gha/event duration)

Visitor AdditionalEcological Footprint(gha/event duration)

Visitor EcologicalFootprint at home1(gha/event duration)

Food and Drink 3,903 2,084 1,819

Accommodation(energy use only)

10,368 2,497 7,871

Travel 43,719 27,158 16,560

Total 57,990 31,739 26,250

1Estimates are based on consumption figures for the average UK resident in 2006 over a three dayperiod. Also assumed that 30% of food and drink purchased by an average UK resident is consumedoutside the home (i.e. food and drink outlets).

The FindingsEnvironmental Impacts

larger footprint at the event was due tothem engaging in different patterns ofconsumption (i.e. different travelchoices and food choices). Thesedifferent consumption patterns weremore resource and energy intensive,and so resulted in a larger footprint.

The additional footprint that wasgenerated by spectators attending theTour was 31,739 global hectares. Thiswas calculated by subtracting whatspectators’ Footprint would have beenif they stayed at home, from the totalevent footprint for each of thecomponents listed in the Table below.


16

Method of travel Prologue (% spectators) Stage 1 (% spectators)

Travel to London Travel in London Travel to Kent

Air 1.7 0.0 0.2

Bicycle 2.4 4.9 5.5

Car 1 22.6 0.8 40.4

Local Bus 1.4 5.1 3.4

Train 65.6 4.3 12.9

Underground 0.0 42.4 0.0

Walk 0.5 40.6 33.3

Other modes 5.8 1.9 4.3

Total* 100% 100% 100%

Transport methods used by UK SPECTATORS to travel to the Tour

Method of travel Prologue (% spectators) 1St Stage (London - Canterbury)(% spectators)

Air 82.9 63.2

Bicycle 1.4 0.0

Boat 0.0 5.1

Car* 1 0.0 21.1

Channel Tunnel 7.1 5.3

Coach 4.3 5.3

Train 4.3 0.0

Total* 100% 100%

Transport methods used by NON UK SPECTATORS to travel to the Tour

1 Average car occupancy was 2.6 (Prologue - Travel to London) and 2.7 (Prologue - Travel in London), and 3.0 (Stage 1).

1 Average car occupancy levels was 3.0 (Stage 1)

international air travel. Rail and cartravel accounted for 20% and 12.5% ofthe overall distances travelled. Thefollowing Tables show those transportmethods that were used by UK and nonUK spectators to travel to the Tour.

The FindingsEnvironmental ImpactsOur study revealed that the maincontributor to spectators’ totalfootprint was the way in which theytravelled. Spectators that attendedthe event travelled an estimated 1.4billion kilometres to watch the event

in London and Kent (and back homeagain), with the average spectatortravelling an average 734 kilometres.Almost 59% of the total distancetravelled by all spectators was by air,and the majority of this was

17

Method of travel Percentage of total distance travelled(%)

Percentage of travel EcologicalFootprint (%)

Air (International) 58.6 45.9

Car 12.5 11.1

Rail1 20.0 25.3

Bus and Coach 5.1 11.4

Other2 3.8 6.3

Total 1.39bn km 43,719 gha

Per average spectator/journey 734 km 0.015 gha

1 Includes National Rail, London Underground and Channel Tunnel.2 Includes boat, cycling, ferry, minibus, motorcycle, motor home, taxi and walking.

of this included highly processed foodand drink items from cafes,restaurants and fast food outlets.These purchases resulted in anecological footprint of more than 3900global hectares, and is almost two anda half times larger than what it wouldhave been at home.

5http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/how-much-electricity-does-it-take-to-run-the-london-underground-in-kwh-and-how-many-people-use-it-each-day/3343801

spectator travel, and 25% to UKspectator travel. The largestcontributors to the travel footprintwere international air travel (45.9%)and rail (25.3%). Travel by coach andcar accounted for 11.4% and 11.1%of the overall travel footprintrespectively.

Visitor Travel and corresponding Ecological Footprint results

The overall distances travelled byspectators – both to and from theevent, and during the event – and thevarious methods of transport usedproduced a footprint of 43,719 globalhectares (see Table below). Seventy-five percent of the travel footprint wasfound to be attributable to non-UK

The next largest contributor (aftertravel) to the ecological footprint wasrelated to accommodation spending.Visitors spent 2.6 million bednights inovernight accommodation in Londonand Kent. This was equivalent to 0.9bednights per spectator (excludingLondon residents). The largestproportion of bednights were spent inhotel accommodation (41.8%), stayingwith friends and family (39.7%), andcamping (11.6%). Spectators stayingin overnight accommodation used anestimated 101 million kilowatts of

energy. This is almost equivalent tofour times the amount of kilowatts ofelectricity required to run the Londonunderground for 4 years (26.5 millionkwh)5. Hotel accommodation can uselarge amounts of energy – an averageof 65 kwh per bednight – for cateringand the heating and lighting ofbedrooms, communal areas and otherfacilities including swimming pools.

Spectators purchased an estimated2000 tonnes of food and drink duringthe Grand Depart. A large proportion

18

Other Findings


• Fifty percent of spectators had previously attended atleast one major cycling event.

• Almost 60% of spectators regularly participated incycling activities of some type. These included leisureand family activities (72.2%), general fitness (56.5%),travelling to work (34%) and, training and competitions(17.6%).

• The largest proportion of miles cycled by spectators werefor leisure and family activities (45.6%), general fitness(22.1%), travel to work (17.3%) and training andcompetitions (8.75%).

• Over 90% of spectators regularly recycled waste at home,and almost 70% would recycle where possible during theTour.

• Thirty percent of spectators stated that they did notrecycle at the Tour due to a lack of easily accessiblerecycling facilities.

19

This study set out to assess theenvironmental and economic impactsof the 2007 Tour de France GrandDepart. In doing so it has provided amore holistic appreciation of theimpacts associated with a majorevent. Whilst the economic impactswere estimated to be associated withalmost £150m of spending and 2,000(fte) jobs, these must be consideredalongside the environmental impactsof an event.

The nature of spectator activity, interms of travelling, use of overnightaccommodation, eating and drinking,generated an average spectatorecological footprint that was morethan twice what it would have been ifthey had stayed at home.

A number of recommendationsflowed from the researchprogramme.

It is recommended that appraisals ofmajor events need to give attention tothe environmental as well as theeconomic impacts. Too often focushas been on economic benefits andclaims made by organisers that theywill seek to minimise environmentaleffects. However, this research showsthat selected environmental impactscan be measured and considered

Conclusions andRecommendations

alongside more conventionaleconomic benefits. We recommendthis type of evaluation needs to beundertaken more regularly withmajor events.

Environmental impact assessmentmethods such as the ‘ecologicalfootprint’ should be integrated intothe planning of events, usingprojection of visitor numbers andforecast travel patterns. In this waysteps can be taken to highlight ‘bighitting’ consumption behaviours inenvironmental terms. Fundamentally,where environmental costs can be setaside economic benefits there is theopportunity to plan to reduce them.For example, our research revealedthat a significant contribution to theecological footprint was spectatortravelling patterns, and hereorganisers might be able to work toinfluence spectators’ travel choicestowards more sustainable options.

It is also recommended that wherethere are existing successful effortsto reduce negative environmentalimpacts, these should be used as abenchmark for future events, therebyensuring continuous progress withinthe event industry.

Our final recommendation is that inaddition to environmental impactsresulting from spectatorconsumption, attempts should alsobe made to consider otherconsumption behaviours connected toevents as well. For example, thisincludes the environmental effectsassociated with team travel, mediacoverage, sponsorship, and pre-eventorganisation and infrastructuredevelopment (permanent andtemporary).

ASO (2007) Publicity Caravan. Key figures of the caravanhttp://www.letour.com/2007/TDF/COURSE/us/caravane_publicitaire.html

Collins A, Munday M and Roberts A (2012) Environmental Consequences ofTourism Consumption at Major Events: An Analysis of the UK Stages of the2007 Tour de France. Journal of Travel Research, 51 (5), pp577-590.

Collins, A. and Flynn, A. 2008. Measuring the environmental sustainability of amajor sporting event: a case study of the FA Cup Final. Tourism Economics14(4), pp. 751-768.

Collins A, Flynn A, Munday M and Roberts A. (2007) Assessing theEnvironmental Consequences of Major Sporting Events: The 2003-04 FA CupFinal. Urban Studies 44(3), pp. 457-476.

Desbordes, M. (2007). The economic impact of a major sport event: the case ofthe Tour de France among different regions. International Journal of SportManagement and Marketing, vol.2, 5-6, 526-540

Jean Marie Leblanc (2006) Tour to start in Whitehall 2007http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4697168.stmPublished: 2006/02/09 12:49:52 GMT

Ken Livingstone (2006) Sixty-Sixth Mayor’s Report to the Assembly(15 November 2006)http://legacy.londonlegacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/edcst/2007/mar01/item10b.rtf

SRA (2007) The Tour de France The Grand Depart 2007 A Research Summary.A Report for Transport for Londonwww.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tour-de-france-research-summary.pdf

References


Designed www.yogicreative.com

Documents

The Environmental Impacts of Major Cycling Events ...orca-mwe.cf.ac.uk/53325/1/Tour-de-France.pdf · Cup, Edinburgh Festival, London Freewheel and the Tour of Britain. ContactDetails