Citation
Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Spectators’ Transportation in Collegiate Sporting Events: Comparing On-Campus and Off-Campus Stadium Locations

Material Information

Title:
Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Spectators’ Transportation in Collegiate Sporting Events: Comparing On-Campus and Off-Campus Stadium Locations
Series Title:
Sustainability
Creator:
Triantafyllidis, Stavros
Publisher:
MDPI
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
Journal Article

Notes

Abstract:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions related to spectator’s transportation to collegiate football events is a significant consideration in the overall carbon footprint of collegiate sporting events. Transportation mode affects CO2 emissions per spectator and stadium location, specifically on- and off-campus locations affect the transportation mode chosen by spectators. The quantity of CO2 emissions generated from spectators’ transportation to collegiate sporting events at an on-campus university stadium is compared to an off-campus stadium. The transportation modes and miles traveled by spectators were modeled with GREET 2016 to estimate CO2 emissions. Significant differences were found between the two stadium locations regarding the spectators’ choice of transportation mode and distance traveled. Implications are presented for environmental sustainability and planning.
Acquisition:
Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Stavros Triantafyllidis.
General Note:
Keywords: sporting events; CO2 emissions; stadium location; sustainable transportation; environmental sustainability; urban planning

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the submitter.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Article CarbonDioxideEmissionsofSpectators' TransportationinCollegiateSportingEvents: ComparingOn-CampusandOff-Campus StadiumLocations StavrosTriantafyllidis 1, ID ,RobertJ.Ries 2 andKyriakiKikiKaplanidou 1 1 DepartmentofTourism,RecreationandSportManagement,UniversityofFlorida,300FloridaGym, P.O.Box118208,Gainesville,FL32611,USA;kiki@hhp.u.edu 2 M.E.RinkerSr.SchoolofConstructionManagement,UniversityofFlorida,332RinkerHall, P.O.Box115703,Gainesville,FL32611-5703,USA;rries@u.edu Correspondence:striantafyllidis@u.edu;Tel.:+1-352-213-5557 Received:9November2017;Accepted:12January2018;Published:18January2018 Abstract:CarbondioxideCO2emissionsrelatedtospectator'stransportationtocollegiatefootballeventsisasignicantconsiderationintheoverallcarbonfootprintofcollegiatesportingevents.TransportationmodeaffectsCO 2 emissionsperspectatorandstadiumlocation,specicallyon-andoff-campuslocationsaffectthetransportationmodechosenbyspectators.ThequantityofCO2emissionsgeneratedfromspectators'transportationtocollegiatesportingeventsatanon-campusuniversitystadiumiscomparedtooff-campusstadium.ThetransportationmodesandmilestraveledbyspectatorsweremodeledwithGREET2016toestimateCO2emissions.Signicantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthetwostadiumlocationsregardingthespectators'choiceoftransportationmodeanddistancetraveled.Implicationsarepresentedforenvironmentalsustainabilityandplanning. Keywords:sportingevents;CO2emissions;stadiumlocation;sustainabletransportation;environmentalsustainability;urbanplanning 1.IntroductionThegenerationofgreenhousegasGHGemissionsduetohumanactivitiesisoneoftheleadingcausesofenvironmentaldegradation[1].AsignicantportionofGHGemissionsiscreatedthroughtransportation[1].People'schoiceoftransportationmodeimpactsenvironmentalsustainability,andultimatelyenvironmentalquality[24].ThegenerationofGHGemissionscontributestoclimatechangeand82%ofGHGemissionsarecarbondioxideCO2[1,5].Previousresearchcorroboratesthatspectator'schoiceofmodefortravelingtosportingeventshasasignicantnegativeimpactonenvironmentalsustainability[1,6,7].Sportsarealargepartofsocietyandacatalystforhumanbehaviors,whichindirectlyandnegativelyaffecttheenvironment[8].TheUnitedNationscommented:sportingevents,sportfacilities,sportactivitiesandmanufactureofsportinggoodshaveanimpactonnaturalenvironment[9].Whenindividualsparticipateinsportingevents,thenaturalenvironmentisimpacted[10].Thenegativeimpactonenvironmentalsustainabilitycanbeattributedtosportfacilities'operation,theconsumptionofproductsandservicesatsportingeventsandthetransportationmodesusedbyparticipantstotraveltosportingevents[4,11].Previousstudieshavehighlightedthatsportingeventshavebecomeanegativecontributortowardsenvironmentaldegradation[2,3,1217].Exploringspecicdomainsofimpact,suchastransportationofspectators,isveryimportant.Edwardsandcolleagues[17]identiedspectatortransportationasthemajorcontributortocarbonemissionsofacollegiatesportingeventandarecentstudyinvestigatedtheCO2emissionsgeneratedfromspectator'straveltofootballsoccergamesinSustainability 2018 10 ,241;doi:10.3390/su10010241www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

PAGE 2

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 2of18England[18].Researchcanprovidesignicantinsightsintospectator'stravelbehaviorsandpotentiallyresultinreducingCO 2 emissions.Sportingeventparticipantscanbeclassiedaspassivee.g.,spectatorsandactivee.g.,athletesparticipants[19,20].Passivesportingeventparticipantscanbedenedasthosewhotraveltoattendanevent,butarenottheathletesdirectlyparticipatinginthesportoractivityattheevent[20].Thecurrentstudyexcludespublicofcials,teams,medical,andsupportstaff[15,17,18].About35millionspectatorsattendedNCAADivisionIFootballBowlSubdivisioncollegiatefootballeventsand49millionattendedallDivisionIfootballeventsin2016[21].Alargenumberofparticipantsconcentratedinaplaceforashortperiodoftimehasasignicantimpactontheenvironment,whichcanbeestimatedbythequantityofCO2emissionsgeneratedbyrelatedactivities[10,22,23].Onefactortoconsiderisstadiumlocationrelativetospectatortransportation,assomeuniversities'footballstadiumsarelocatedon-campus,whereasotheruniversity'sstadiumsarelocatedoff-campus[24].TransportationmodesusedbyspectatorsattendingsportingeventsmaygenerateCO2emissionsthroughtheburningoffossilfuels[25]ormaybeCO2emissionfreesuchasbikingandwalking[17].Sometimes,spectatorstravel100milesormoretoattendasportingevent,watchtheirfavoriteteamcompete,andthentravelthesamedistancebacktotheirhomes[4,17,20,25].Intheleisure,tourismandsportliterature,sportingeventparticipantswhotravelover100milesareconsideredsportingeventtourists[20,26].Itisnecessaryforsportingeventtouriststochoosetransportationmodes,e.g.,airplane,car,bus,ortrain,togettothesportingevent[20,25].Tobetterunderstandtheenvironmentalimpactoftransportationmodesusedbyspectators,thisstudyinvestigatedthetransportationmodedifferencesbetweenanon-campuscollegiatefootballeventon-CFEandanoff-campuscollegiatefootballeventoff-CFE.Analyzingthesetwodifferentstadiumlocationsprovidedclearerinsightonhowspectator'stransportationmodeinuencedCO2emissionsandifstadiumlocationchangesCO2emissionsperspectatorandultimatelyenvironmentalsustainability.Thegeolocationofcollegiatefootballeventscanplayasignicantroleinaspectators'decisiontoattendtheeventornot[27].Literaturehasyettosubstantiatetheenvironmentalimpactofspectators'chosenformoftransportationwithregardtothelocationofacollegiatefootballevent[27,28].Basedonurbanplanningtheory,theon-CFEcanbeconsideredahigh-densityareaandtheoff-CFEcanbeconsideredalow-densityarea[29].Thisisimportantbecausecampusesareconsideredtobesmallcities,wheretheinfrastructureofbuildings,roads,andpublictransportationsimulateurbancharacteristics[29].Incontrast,off-campusstadiumsareusuallylocatedinasuburbanlow-densityarea,whereinfrastructure,roadsandpublictransportationarelessdense[29].Althoughtherearecollegiatestadiumslocatedoff-campusinhigh-densityareas,theoff-CFEthatthestudyexploredwasinalow-densityarea.Thefollowingresearchquestionsguidedthestudy:RQ1:HowdoCO2emissionsdifferinanon-campuscollegiatefootballeventon-CFEhigh-densityareaversusanoff-campuscollegiatefootballeventoff-CFElow-densityarea? RQ2:HowdoCO 2 emissionsbytransportationmodedifferinanon-CFEversusanoff-CFE?RQ3:HowdoCO2emissionsbymilestraveledgroupsdifferinanon-CFEversusanoff-CFE?Ifweassumeequalcapacity,000spectatorsforbothstadiums,weretheredifferencesinCO2 emissionsforanon-CFE versus anoff-CFE? 1.1.EnvironmentalImpactandSportingEvents 1.1.1.CarbonDioxideEmissionsTheprimaryGHGemissionstotheearth'satmosphereare82%CO2,10%methaneCH4,5%nitrousoxideN2Oand3%uorinatedgases[1].AmethodforassessingGHGimpactisestimatingthequantityofCO2emissions[1],andenvironmentalimpactgenerallyisestimatedbyexaminingsubstancesreleasedtotheenvironmentbecauseofhumanactivities[30].Thecarbonfootprintisa

PAGE 3

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 3of18termusedtorefertothetotalamountofCO2emissionsthataregeneratedbyaproduct,activity,orpopulation[31],andthegreatertheCO2emissionsreleasedtotheatmosphere,thegreatertheimpactontheenvironment[30].OneofthecontributingfactorstothecarbonfootprintandadirectcontributortoCO2emissionsgeneration[31]isvehiculartransportation,suchascarsandbuses[32].Studiessupportthatspectators'transportationtosportingeventshasamajorenvironmentalimpact[3,5,17].Thiscanbeseenrst-handduringsportingeventsasspectatorsuseavarietyoftransportationmodestoattendaparticulareventataparticularstadiumlocation,i.e.,on-CFEandoff-CFE[4]. 1.1.2.SportingEventActivitiesThatGenerateCarbonDioxideEmissionsSportingeventsaremeansofentertainmentthathavegainedtremendouspopularityintheUSthroughoutthelastcentury[33,34].ItisimportanttonotethattransportationtoandfromsportingeventsisnottheonlycontributingfactortoCO2emissionsforthisscenario[12].Constructionandoperationofsportingeventfacilities,aswellasspectators'foodandbeverageconsumptionarealsofactorsthatcontributetoCO2emissions[4,12,27].Americancollegiatefootballeventssharetheaforementionedsportingeventcharacteristics[25].Intermsoffacilityuseduringsportingevents,stadiumsrequireenergyinordertofunctioneffectively,withincreasedusageofairconditioning,waterandelectricity[12].Spectatorsconsumeavarietyoffoodandbeveragesduringsportingevents,resultinginthegenerationofwastethatmustbedisposedof,whichcontributetothereleaseofCO2emissions[25].Lastly,thespectators'transportationmodeshavebeenestimatedtoberesponsibleforthemajorityofCO2emissionsreleasedasaresultofasportingevent[4,17].Thecurrentstudycomparedtheimpactoftransportationtocollegiatefootballeventsattwostadiumlocationswithdifferenturbancharacteristics.Asnotedearlier,literaturehaspreviouslysubstantiatedhowsportingeventsgenerateacarbonfootprint,butliteratureislimitedoncollegiatefootballeventsspecically[3,16,17].Forexample,Collinsandhercolleagues[2]exploredthetotalcarbonfootprintgeneratedduringthe2004FootballsoccerAssociationChallengeFAcupnalintheUnitedKingdom.Thestudyfoundthatthecarbonfootprintcreatedby70,000spectatorsamountedtoapproximately560metrictonsofCO2emissions,witheachspectatorcontributingabout7.67kgofCO2emissions[2].Additionally,theyfoundthatthe2004WalesRallyeventgeneratedapproximately1260metrictonsofCO2emissionsintotal;approximately20.2kgperspectator[3]andestimatedthatthe2007TourdeFrancegenerated144,120tonsofCO2emissions,approximately50.5kgperspectator[16].Forthelasttwoevents,thenumberofspectatorsandvisitorswasvaried,asbotheventslastmultipledays[2].Therefore,theestimationofthetotalnumberofspectatorswasbasedoncalculationsfromboththeopeningceremonyandtheprologue,whichwasabout50,000spectatorsinbothcases[2].DolfandTeehanfoundthatspectatorscontributed960metrictonsofCO2emissionsoveroneseason,about24kgperspectator[4].Finally,workbyEdwardsandcolleaguesfoundthattravelrelatedtoahomecomingcollegiatesportingeventgenerated1.97and1.48metrictonsofCO2emissionsin2012and2013,respectively[17]. 1.1.3.Spectators'TransportationandCarbonDioxideEmissionsTransportationmodeisdenedasmeansbywhichanindividualaccessesortravelsfromoneplacetothenext[7,35].Examplesoftransportationmodesareairplanes,cars,trains,buses,bicycles,andwalking[7,35].Transportationisanimportantfactorasspectatorstravelsometimeshundredsofmilesjusttoattendasinglesportingevent[20].Forexample,in2010OlympicWinterGamesinVancouver,268,000metrictonsofCO2emissionsweregeneratedwithtransportationmodestoandfromtheeventrepresenting70%or187,000metrictonsofthoseemissions[4].Inthe2010WorldCupinSouthAfrica,transportationcontributed2.8millionmetrictonsofCO2emissions,accountingfor86%oftheoverallemissions[3638].Lastly,transportationwasresponsibleformorethan90%ofalltheCO2emissionsthatweregeneratedbyallsportingeventsinGermanyin2005[7].Fromthe25.6millionspectatorsthatattendedsportingeventsin2005,around210,000metrictonsofCO2emissionswere

PAGE 4

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 4of18estimatedtohavebeengeneratedorabout8kgofCO2perpersonperevent[7].BothCollinsandcolleaguesandEdwardsandcolleagues[2,3,17]notedthattransportationmodesusedbyspectatorshavethemostsignicantimpactontheenvironmentduetothehighquantityofCO2emissionsthatareemittedduringtheseevents[2,3,17]. 1.2.TheoryandHypothesesDevelopment 1.2.1.EnvironmentalSustainabilityTransportationisamajorfactorcontributingtothedepletionofresourcesandnegativeimpactonenvironmentalsustainabilityasnon-renewableresources,e.g.,fossilfuels,areusedtosupporttransportation[39,40].Forinstance,automobilesburnfossilfuelswhichcausesCO2emissionstobereleased[1].Hence,spectator'suseoftransportationforattendingcollegiatefootballeventsisanactionthatimpactstheenvironment[3541]. 1.2.2.PlanningTheoryandUrbanPlanningPlanningtheoryreferstothescienticconceptsthatdenethebodyofknowledgeofurbanplanning[42].Theoriginofurbanplanningliesinthemovementthataroseasareactiontothedisorderoftheindustrialcityinthe19thcentury[43].Urbanplanningincludesurbanrenewal,whichistheimplementationofplanningstrategiesforcitiesthatmaysufferfromindustrialdecline[43].However,urbanplanningalsoincludestheoppositeendofthespectrum,challengesthatarisewithacceleratedurbangrowth[42,43].Intheurbanplanningliterature,researchhasbeenconductedacrossareassuchassustainability,geographyandhealth[44,45].Thetermsustainabledevelopmenthasbeencommonlyusedtorepresentthebalanceofplanninggoalsandtheenvironmentcreatingaharmoniousstate[45].Whendiscussingurbanplanning,thetermurbandensityisoftenreferredtoandcanbedenedasthenumberofpeoplethatinhabitaspeciedarea[44].Urbandensityisconsideredacriticalfactorinunderstandinghowcitiesfunction[4247]. 1.2.3.HighDensityandLow-DensityAreasandTransportationHigh-densityarease.g.,citiesandlow-densityarease.g.,ruralareasheavilyinuencedecisionmakingwhendeterminingchoiceofmode[48].Chen,GongandPaaswell[48]highlightedthatdensityisakeycomponentindevelopinganeighborhood'sinfrastructure,andleadstoconsiderationssuchaspublictransportationsystemsandbicyclelanes.Chenetal.[48]alsodiscussedthattheuseofcarsinahigh-densityareaislowerthaninalow-densityareaduetomoretrafc,inconvenience,andspacelimitations.Moreover,costvariables,joblocations,andtransitaccessibilityareadditionalfactorsthatinuencepeople'sbehaviorsregardingchoiceoftransportationmode[47,48].Specically,peopleinhigh-densityareastendtousetransportationmodeswithlowerCO2emissionsperpersonanddistancetraveledthanpeopleinlow-densityareas[46,48].Inthisstudy,thedifferencesinenvironmentalimpactduetotransportationwillbetestedinbothahigh-densityareaandalow-densityarea.Forthepurposesofthispaper,on-CFErepresentsahigh-densityareae.g.,transitaccessibility,whereasoff-CFErepresentsalow-densityareae.g.,lackofpublictransitinfrastructureandaccessibility[4548].Basedonpreviousliteratureconcerningurbanplanning,itisexpectedthattheenvironmentalimpactduetotransportationinanon-CFEwillbelessthananoff-CFE[4548].Researchhasshownthattheenvironmentalpollutiongeneratedfromtransportationmodesinhigh-densityareasisfarlessthantheamountofpollutiongeneratedinlow-densityareas[48].Thereasoningbehindthisdifferenceisthattherearemorealternative,lowCO2formsoftransportationinahigh-densityarea,sothereislessimpactduetoCO2emissionsoverall[46,48].High-densityandlow-densityareashavealargeorsmallnumberofresidentsrespectively,wheretheiractivitiesemitCO2emissionstotheatmosphereprimarilybecausefossilfuelsareusedforindustry,andforprovidingfood,shelter,andtransportation[40,41,44].Overall,transportationcontributesabout31%ofCO2emissionsgeneratedintheUSannually[1].Theremainderisduetootherindustrialactivities,

PAGE 5

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 5of18buildingoperation,agriculture,andtrade[1].VehiclesgenerateCO2emissions,andthegreaterthemilestraveled,thegreatertheCO 2 emissions[1].TheexpectationisthatthelocationofsportingeventsimpactCO2emissions,i.e.,CO2emissionsperspectatorwillbesignicantlydifferentandhigherinanoff-CFEcomparedtoanon-CFE,consideringandcomparingtransportationmodesusedandmilestraveled.TotalCO2emissionsgeneratedarecomparedusinghypotheticalstadiumswithanequalcapacityof90,000spectators. 2.MaterialsandMethods 2.1.DescriptionofStudySitesDataonthetransportationmodechoicesofspectatorsatanon-CFEwerecollectedfromthecampusofasoutheasternuniversitywithastudentpopulationofapproximately52,300.Thiscampuswasclassiedasahigh-densityareaduetoitson-campusfootballstadiumanddevelopedinfrastructure[44,46,48].Thecampusprovideseasyaccessfortransportationandparkinglotsthatareavailableforuseduringthetimeofthesportingevent[49].Thereisalsoabussystemthatprovideseasyaccesstothestadium,withroutesthatfrequentlypickupanddropoffoncampus[49].Theon-CFEalsohaswelldesignedbikelaneswithdesignatedbikeparkingandpavedsidewalksforpedestrianuse[49].Lastly,thecampusincludeslivingaccommodationsforstudents,ahospital,variousrestaurants,ahotelandotherathleticfacilitiesthatalsohavecharacteristicsofahigh-densityarea[4649].Dataontheoff-CFEwerecollectedfromtheareasurroundingthestadiumofaUSsoutheasternuniversity.Thestadiumislocatedoff-campusinasuburbanarea,22.1milesawayfromtheuniversitycampus[49].Thetransportationsystemsurroundingthecampusandthestadiumislimited[49].Therearereasonableaccommodationsforparkingbothcarsandcharteredbuses[49],howevertherearenooptionsforpublictransportation,leavingcarsandcharteredbusesasthemainformoftransportation.Thus,duetothelimitedavailabilityoftransportationoptionsandthelackofinfrastructure,thisoff-CFEcanbeclassiedasalow-densityarea[48,49]. 2.2.DataCollection 2.2.1.ParticipantsandProceduresOn-site,face-to-facesurveyquestionnaireswereusedtocollectdatafromspectatorsatthesetwocollegiatefootballevents.Participantswereover18yearsold,bothmalesandfemalesandresidentsoftheUS.Datawerecollectedoutsideofthestadium,inareaswherespectatorstailgateandenterthestadium.Participantsweregivenabriefexplanationofthestudy'spurposeandtheywereassuredthatallresponseswouldbecompletelyanonymousandcondential.Theresearcheraskedeachparticipantequationsonthefollowing:transportationmodesusedtoattendtheevent;thenumberofpeoplethatwereinthevehiclewhenappropriate;andwheretraveloriginatedand/ormilestraveled.Datapertainingtodemographicswerealsocollected,suchasgenderandafliation,e.g.,student,alumni,orunafliatedseeAppendixA. 2.2.2.Spectators'On-SiteSurveyParticipantswererandomlyselectedfromthedesignatedareas.Samplepopulationwasthetargetpopulation,andtheresearcheraskedeachpotentialparticipantiftheywereticketholdersorjusttailgating.Forbothcollegiatefootballevents,thesamplepopulationincludedthosespectatorswhowereticketholders.ThesamplepopulationsurveyedfrombotheventswasN=488;on-CFEwasn =253andtheoff-CFEwas n =235.

PAGE 6

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 6of18 2.3.Measures 2.3.1.IndependentVariablesTheon-sitesurveyquestionnaireaimedtomeasuretheindependentvariableswhichwerethestadiumlocatione.g.,Group1:on-CFE;andGroup2:off-CFE,thetransportationmodese.g.,Group1:car/scooter;Group2:carpool;Group3:bus;andGroup4:eco-friendlyandmilestravelede.g.,Group1:0to20;Group2:20to40;Group3:40to60;Group4:60to80;andGroup5:80ormoremiles. 2.3.2.DependentVariableThedependentvariablewasthemassofCO2emissionsgeneratedbytheparticipantsastheytraveledtothecollegiatefootballevents.TheCO2emissionsgeneratedbymodewerecalculatedusingGREET2016,alifecycleanalysistooldevelopedbytheArgonneNationalLaboratoryANL[50]. 2.4.GREETModel2016In1995,theUSArgonneNationalLaboratoryANLdevelopedtheGreenhouseGasesRegulatedEmissionsandEnergyuseinTransportationGREETmodel[5056].TheGREETmodelwasoriginallydevelopedtoserveasananalyticaltool[5256].andwasusedmainlybydifferentresearchersandpractitionersthatwereaimingtoestimatethefuelcycleenergyuseandtheemissionsrelatedtoethanolfuels,alternativetransportationfuelsandnewvehicletechnologiese.g.,electriccars[5256].InJune1996,ANLreleasedtherstversionofGREETandthemodelhasbeenfurtherdevelopedsincethen[5256].GREETprovidesananalysisofGHGemissionsoffuelproductionandconsumptionstages,usingdefaultassumptionsandhasbeenusedtoestimatetheGHGgeneratedbytransportation[48,49].ANL[50]alsodevelopedtheGREETFleetFootprintCalculatortohelpstakeholdersestimatetheGHGgeneratedbytransportation[50,51]whichwasusedtoestimatetheCO2emissionsgeneratedfromthevehiclesinthecurrentstudy. 2.5.DataAnalysisDatawerescreened,cleanedandthevariablesweredenedandthenanalyzedusingStatisticalPackageforSocialScienceSPSSsoftware[57].Descriptivestatisticswithcrosstabulationsweregeneratedtoexaminethevariabledistributionsforboththeon-CFEandtheoff-CFE.Furthermore,thedistributionofspectators'transportationmodesusedandmileagetraveledwerecalculated.DescriptivestatisticswereprovidedtoexaminethemeanvaluesandstandarddeviationsSDoftheindependentvariablesandthedependentvariable.Datawerescannedforindependence,possibleoutliersandnormality;thehomogeneityofvarianceofeachofthegroupswasanalyzedusingLevene'stest. 2.5.1.DescriptiveStatisticsDescriptivestatisticsarepresentedinTables13.Table1showsthedemographicinformation,Table2illustratesthemeanCO2forthefourdifferenttransportationmodesusedbyspectators,andTable3depictsthemeanCO 2 oftheverangesofmilestraveledintwostadiumlocations. 2.5.2.Independent t -TestandOne-WayAnalysisofVarianceANOVAThedifferencesinthequantityofCO2emissionsbetweenthetwostadiumlocationswasexamined.Theresultsoftheindependentt-testareshowninTable4.Anindependentt-testexploredthedifferencesintotalCO2emissionsgeneratedforbothon-CFEandanoff-CFEbasedonlyonthecommontransportationmodesusedbyspectatorsi.e.,carpoolandbusinthetwostadiumlocations;theresultsareillustratedinTable5andFigure1.ThedifferencesinCO2emissionsgeneratedby

PAGE 7

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 7of18transportationmodechoiceintheon-CFEwereexploredthroughone-wayANOVA;inaddition,thepost-hoccomparisonispresentedseeTables6and7.Anindependentt-testwasconductedtoinvestigatethedifferencesbetweencarpoolandbusmodesintheoff-CFEseeTable8.At-testwasusedasonlytheto40milesgroupwascommonforbothlocations.Resultsofthet-testarepresentedinTable9andthedistributionofallthemilestraveledgroupsisshowninFigure2.Lastly,meanCO2bytransportationmodeandmileagegroupswasusedtocompareCO2emissionswhenstadiumattendancewasscaledto90,000ineachcaseseeTable10andFigure3. Table1.Sampledemographicresultsbystadiumlocationforspectatorsattendingthecollegiatefootballevents. FrequencyPercent% On-CFE Gender Males16063 Females9337 Total253100 Afliation Students15059 Non-students10341 Total253100 Off-CFE Gender Males12854 Females10746 Total235100 Afliation Students4519 Non-students19081 Total217100 Non-studentsincludedalumnae,parentsandunafliatedspectators;On-CFEreferstoOn-CampusCollegiateFootballEvent;Off-CFEreferstoOff-CampusCollegiateFootballEvent. Table2.KilogramsofCO2-eqwithstatisticaldataforemissionsfortransportationmodegroupsbystadiumlocation. On-CFE MSD Frequency%CO 2 Car/Scooter14.5926.193616.4 Carpool17.7320.4415183.5 Bus0.400.1880.1 Eco-friendly00580.0 Total12.6720.21253100 Off-CFE MSD Frequency%CO 2 Car/Scooter0000 Carpool4.584.6421491.1 Bus2.690218.9 Eco-friendly0000 Total4.414.46235100 MeanvaluesM,kgofCO2perspectator;SD,standarddeviation;eco-friendlyreferstotransportationmodesthatemitzeroCO 2 andincludesbicycleandwalk.

PAGE 8

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 8of18 Table3.KilogramsofCO2-eqwithstatisticaldataforemissionsformilestraveledgroupsbystadiumlocation. On-CFE MSD Frequency%CO 2 0to20miles0.981.321675.1 20to40miles7.002.0551.1 40to60miles0000 60to80miles0000 80milesor more 37.1221.228193.8 Total12.6720.21253100 Off-CFE MSD Frequency%CO 2 0to20miles0000 20to40miles2.881.1211030.6 40to60miles2.690215.4 60to80miles5.180.51110049.9 80milesor more 36.470414.1 Total4.464.45235100 MeanvaluesM,kgofCO 2 emissionsperspectator;SD,standarddeviation. Table4. Resultsofindependent t -testanddescriptivestatisticsforstadiumlocations. StadiumLocation95%CIforMeanDifference On-CFEOff-CFE LLUL M SDn M SDnt df CarbondioxideCO2emissionskg12.6720.212534.464.45235.65,10.786.30*278.232 p<0.05*,MeanvaluesM=kgofCO2emissionsperspectator;SD,standarddeviation;CI,condenceinterval;LL,lowerlevel;UL,upperlevel;df,degreesoffreedom. Table5.ResultsofIndependentt-testanddescriptivestatisticsforcarpoolmodeperstadiumlocation. CarpoolMode95%CIforMeanDifference On-CFEOff-CFE LLUL M SDn M SDnt df CarbondioxideCO2emissionskg17.7220.711514.634.63214.71,16.497.64***160.63 p<0.001***;MeanvaluesM,kgofCO2emissionsperspectator;SD,standarddeviation;CI,condenceinterval;LL,lowerlevel;UL,upperlevel;df,degreesoffreedom. Table6. Resultsofindependent t -testanddescriptivestatisticsforbusmodeperstadiumlocation. BusMode95%CIforMeanDifference On-CFEOff-CFE LLUL M SDn M SDnt df CarbondioxideCO2emissionskg0.400.1882.68021 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(2.43, )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(2.13 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(35.47***7 p<0.001*;MeanvaluesM,kgofCO2emissionsperspectator;SD,standarddeviation;CI,condenceinterval;LL,lowerlevel;UL,upperlevel;df,degreesoffreedom. Table7.One-wayanalysisofvarianceofCO2emissionsperspectatorbytransportationmodegroupsinon-CFE. Source dfSSMSFp Between groups 314512.314837.4413.63***0.001 Withingroups24988,389.92354.98-Total252102,902.23--p <0.001***;df,degreesoffreedom;SS,sumofsquares;MS,meansquare.

PAGE 9

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 9of18 Table8. ANOVAcomparisonsoftransportationmodegroupsforon-CFE. IOn-CFE TransportationModes JOn-CFE TransportationModes MeanDifference I-J Std.Error 95%CondenceInterval LowerBoundUpperBound Car/scooter Carpool )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.374 0 Td [(3.133.49 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.374 0 Td [(12.175.90 Bus14.197.36 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(4.8533.24 Eco-friendly14.59*4.004.2524.93 Carpool Car/scooter3.133.49 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(5.9012.17 Bus17.32 p =0.0576.84 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(0.3535.01 Eco-friendly17.73*2.9110.2025.26 Bus Car/scooter )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(14.197.36 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.374 0 Td [(33.243.43 Eco-friendly Carpool )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(17.32 p =0.0576.83 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.374 0 Td [(35.010.35 Eco-friendly0.407.10 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.374 0 Td [(17.9818.78 Car/scooter )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(14.59*3.99 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(24.93 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(4.25 Carpool )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(17.72*2.91 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(25.26 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(10.20 Bus )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.374 0 Td [(0.407.11 )]TJ/F204 8.9664 Tf 7.375 0 Td [(18.7817.98 Table9.Resultsofindependentt-testanddescriptivestatisticsofcarpoolandbusmodegroupsforoff-CFE. Off-CFE95%CIforMeanDifference CarpoolBus LLUL M SDn M SDnt df CarbondioxideCO 2 emissionskg 4.584.632142.69021.27,2.515.98***213 p<0.001***,MeanvaluesM,kgofCO2emissionsperspectator;SD,standarddeviation;CI,condenceinterval;LL,lowerlevel;UL,upperlevel;df,degreesoffreedom. Table10. Resultsofindependent t -testbetween20to40miles'groupsforbothstadiumlocations. 20to40MilesGroup95%CIforMeanDifference On-CFEOff-CFE LLUL M SDn M SDnt df CarbondioxideCO 2 emissionskg 72.0552.881.12110.06,5.177.71***101 p<0.001***;MeanvaluesM,kgofCO2emissionsperspectator;SD,standarddeviation;CI,condenceinterval;LL,lowerlevel;UL,upperlevel;df,degreesoffreedom. Figure1.MeanCO2emissionsperspectatorbytransportationmodeforon-andoff-campusstadiumlocations.

PAGE 10

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 10of18 Figure2.MeanCO2emissionsperspectatorbymileagegroupsforon-andoff-campusstadiumlocations. Figure3.CO2emissionsbymileagegroupsfor90,000spectatorsforbothon-andoff-campusstadiumlocations. 2.5.3.CarbonDioxideEmissionsperPersonperMileageGroupandStadiumLocationTheaverageCO2emissionsinkgperspectatorpermileagegroupandstadiumlocationiscalculatedusingEquation. CO 2 emissionsinkgperpersonpermileagegroupperstadiumlocation. CO 2 ik kg = 4 j = 1 N ijk CO 2 ijk N ik whereiisthemileagegroups:0to20miles,20to40miles,40to60miles,60to80miles,and80milesormore;jisthetransportationmodes:car/scooter,carpool,andbus,eco-friendly;kistheevent/location:on-CFEandoff-CFE;N ikisthenumberofpeopleinmileagegroupi,inlocationk;N ijkisthenumber

PAGE 11

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 11of18ofpeopleinmileagegroupi,usingtransportationmodej,inlocationk;andCO 2 ijkisthemeanCO2 emissionsperperson,oftransportationmode j ,inmileagegroup i ,inlocation k 2.5.4.CarbonDioxideEmissionsperPersonperStadiumLocationwith90,000SpectatorsSincetheeventattendanceattheon-CFEandtheoff-CFEweredifferent,thespectators'distancetraveledbytransportationmodewerelinearlyscaledsuchthatbothplaceshadequal,i.e.,90,000,spectatorpopulationsasshowninEquation. CO 2 emissionsperpersonperstadiumlocationwith90,000spectators. CO 2 k kg = 5 i = 1 N ik N k 90,000 CO 2 ik whereCO 2 ikisthecarbondioxideemissionsfromtransportationinmileagegroupi,inlocationk;iisthemileagegroups:0to20miles,20to40miles,40to60miles,60to80miles,and80milesormore;kistheevent/location:on-CFEandoff-CFE;N ikisthenumberofpeopleinmileagegroupiinlocationk;andN k istheattendanceatlocation k 3.Results 3.1.DemographicsGenderdemographicsweresimilarinbothon-CFEandoff-CFEseeTable1.However,thepercentageofstudentsattheon-CFEwas59%,whereas,atoff-CFE,studentsrepresentedonly19%ofspectators.Fortheon-CFE,20%ofspectatorswerealumni,18%wereunafliatedspectatorsand3%wereparents,whereasfortheoff-CFE45%werealumni,36%wereunafliatedspectators,andnoparentsofstudentswereinthesamplepopulationseeTable1. 3.2.DescriptiveStatisticsResultsofthecross-tabulationsforthetransportationmodesindicatedthatfortheon-CFE,60%spectatorscarpooledand23%usedaneco-friendlymodeoftransportation,e.g.,bike,longboard,orwalk,withzeroCO2emissions.Theresultsfortheoff-CFEindicatedthat91%ofspectatorscarpooledorusedacarservicetoattendtheeventand9%usedbusesseeTable2.Nospectatorswalkedorbikedtotheoff-CFE.Forthemilestraveledbyspectatorsfortheon-CFE,66%traveled0to20miles,2%traveledto40milesand32%traveledmilesormore.Fortheoff-CFE,47%ofthespectatorstraveledto40miles,and43%traveledto80milesseeTable3.Moston-CFEspectatorswereeitherverycloseorveryfarfromthestadiumlocation.Overall,themeanCO2emissionsperspectatorfortheon-CFEwasM=12.67kg,SD =20.21kg,n=253andM=4.46kg,SD=4.45kg,n=235fortheoff-CFEseeTable4.ThemeanCO2emissionsperspectatorbytransportationmodeandlocationareshowninTable2.Twodifferencesbetweenlocationsare:forthecarpoolmode,themeanCO2emissionsperspectatorforon-CFEwasM =17.73kg,SD=20.44kg,n=151,whereas,foroff-CFE,carpoolmodewasM=4.62kg,SD =4.68kg,n=214;andthebusmodemeanfortheon-CFEwasM=0.40kg,SD=0.18kg,n =8versus M =2.69kg, SD =0kg, n =21fortheoff-CFEseeTable2.ThemeanCO2emissionsperspectatorforthemilestraveledgroupswassimilarforthemilesormoregroupatbothlocations.Onlytheto40milestraveledgroupwascommoninon-andoff-CFE,whichwasusedforcomparison. 3.3.Independentt-TestforStadiumLocationThedependentvariablewasmeasuredintermsofkgCO2emissionsperspectator,andthevaluesvariedfrom0to97.68kgCO2perspectator.Anindependentt-testrevealedasignicantdifferenceinthemeanCO2emissionsperpersoninthetwolocationst.23=6.30,p<0.01,

PAGE 12

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 12of1895%CIformeandifferences5.65to10.78Theon-CFEhadalargermeanCO2emissioninkgperpersonM =12.67kg,SD=20.21kg,n=253thantheoff-CFEM=4.46kg,SD=4.45kg,n=235.Consequently,thehypothesiswasnotsupported.Theresultsoftheindependentt-testarepresentedinTable4. 3.4.Independentt-TestandOne-WayANOVAforTransportationModes 3.4.1.TwoIndependent t -TestsforCommonTransportationModesTwoindependentt-testswereconductedforthecommontransportationmodes,namelycarpoolandbus.TheCO2emissionsgeneratedbythecarpoolgroupattheon-CFEM=17.72,SD=20.71,n =151wascomparedtothecarpoolgroupoff-CFEM=4.63,SD=4.63,n=214andthebusmodeattheon-CFEM=0.40,SD=0.18,n=8wascomparedtothebusmodeattheoff-CFEM=2.68,SD=0,n=21.TheCO2emissionsgeneratedbythebusandcarpoolmodeswerecomparedacrossstadiumlocations.ResultsrevealedasignicantdifferenceinthemeankgofCO2emissionsperpersonusingthecarpoolandbusmodesatthetwolocations:carpoolhadhigherCO2emissionsattheon-CFEt =7.64,p<0.001,with95%CIformeandifferences9.71to16.49andbushadlowerCO2emissionsattheon-CFEt=)]TJ/F204 9.9626 Tf 1.02 0 0 1 227.982 529.525 Tm [(35.47,p<0.001,with95%CIformeandifferences )]TJ/F204 9.9626 Tf 8.194 0 Td [(2.44to )]TJ/F204 9.9626 Tf 8.194 0 Td [(2.13Theresultsofthet-testsarepresentedinTables5and6andtheresultsofthedistributionofCO2 emissionsbytransportationmodearepresentedinFigure1. 3.4.2.On-CFETransportationModes Theone-wayANOVAshowedthattherewasasignicanteffectoftransportationmodeonCO 2emissionsintheon-CFEF,249=13.627,p<0.001.Therefore,thehypothesiswassupported.Thepost-hocTukeyHSDtestindicatedthatthemeanCO2emissionsperspectatorforthecar/scootermodewasnotsignicantlydifferentfromcarpoolingp=0.806andbusp=0.219.However,thecar/scootermodewassignicantlydifferentfromtheeco-friendlymodep<0.002.Furthermore,thecarpoolingmodewassignicantlydifferentfromtheeco-friendlymodep<0.001.Lastly,theeco-friendlymodewassignicantlydifferentfromboththecar/scooterp<0.002,andcarpool p <0.001;butnotwiththebus p >0.05.Tables7and8showstheresultsoftheone-wayANOVA. 3.4.3.Off-CFETransportationModesIntheoff-CFE,spectatorseitherusedthebusorcarpooled.At-testwasperformedtocomparecarpoolingM=4.58,SD=4.64,n=214andbusM=2.68,SD=0,n=21modesintheoff-CFE.TherewasasignicantdifferenceinCO2emissionsperspectatorfortheoff-CFEtransportationmodes t =5.972, p <0.001Therefore,thehypothesiswassupportedseeTable9. 3.5.CarbonDioxideEmissionsofEachMilesTraveledGroupTheCO2emissionsperspectatorofeachmiletraveledgroupwasestimatedforboththeon-CFEandtheoff-CFEseeFigure2.Anindependentt-testwasconductedtotestthedifferencesbetweentheto40milestraveledgroupinanon-CFEM=7kg,SD=2.05kg,n=5versusanoff-CFEM=2.88kg,SD=1.12kg,n =110.Theindependentt-testrevealedasignicantdifferenceinthemeanCO2emissionsinkgperpersonthattraveled20to40milestoattendanon-CFEversusanoff-CFEt=7.71,p<0.001,95%CIformeandifferences3.06to5.17Theon-CFEto40mileshadgreatermeanCO2emissionsperpersonthantheoff-CFEand,consequently,thehypothesiswasnotsupported.Theresultsoftheindependent t -testarepresentedinTable10. 3.6.CarbonDioxideEmissionsbyMilesTraveledGroupswith90,000SpectatorsForH3b,ahypothetical90,000seatingcapacitystadiumscenarioforbothon-CFEandoff-CFEwascreatedandtheCO2emissionsextrapolatedbyusingthemeanCO2emissionsperpersonandnumber

PAGE 13

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 13of18ofspectatorsineachmiletraveledgroupbystadiumlocation,asshowninEquation.Over90%oftheon-CFE90,000capacitystadiummodelemissionsarefromthespectatorstravelingthefurthest,representingaboutone-thirdofon-CFEspectators.Intotal,off-CFEhadapproximatelyone-thirdoftheCO 2 emissionsoftheon-CFE.TheCO 2 emissionspermilestraveledgrouparepresentedinFigure3. 4.DiscussionThestudyexaminedhowdifferingcollegiatefootballeventlocationsanon-campusstadiumwiththecharacteristicsofahigh-densityareaandanoff-campuscharacterizedasalow-densityareaimpactCO2emissionsfromdifferenttransportationmodesanddistancestraveledbyspectators.Previousstudieshavefocusedononeuniversity[4],mega-sportingevents[3,6,16,3638],andaggregateannualemissionsforprofessionalsports[7,18].Thendingsrevealedbothmeaningfulandinsightfulinformationregardingtheeffectsofstadiumlocation,spectator'stransportationchoicesandmilestraveledonCO2emissions.Theresultsinclude:athedifferenceinCO2emissionsgeneratedbyspectators'travel;bthespectators'choicesoftransportationmode;andcthedifferentdistancesspectatorstraveltoattendacollegiatefootballeventinon-andoff-campussettings. 4.1.Implications 4.1.1.EnvironmentalSustainabilityTheresultingresearchaddednewknowledgetosportingeventliteraturewithregardstotheenvironmentalsustainabilityandurbanplanning[27,42,45,58,59].Specically,CO2emissionsofsportingeventtransportationmaynotbeexclusivelyalignedwithurbanplanningtheory.Thereislittletonoexistingliteraturethatexplorestheimpactofspectators'transportationmodesandmilestraveledonCO2emissionsindifferentlocationsincollegiatefootballevents.on-CFEhigh-densityareahadsignicantlyhigherCO2emissionsthantheoff-CFElow-densityareas[48].Thiscontrastswithcurrentliterature,whichfoundthattransportationinhigh-densityareashadlessofanimpactontheenvironmentcomparedtolow-densityareas[46,48].Thehigh-densitystructureoftheon-CFElocationwasnottheonlyfactorinuencingCO2emissionsfromspectators'transportation.Althoughsportingeventsaremostoftenassociatedwithpositiveexperiences,beautifulmemoriesandsymbolicmeanings,itisimportanttorecognizethatsucheventssimultaneouslycontributetothegenerationofpollutantsandconsequentlysportingeventshaveindirectnegativeoutcomesonenvironmentalsustainability[3,27]. 4.1.2.PlanningAsfarasplanningisconcerned,thestudyfoundthatlocalplanningintermsoftransportationanddensitymaynotbesufcienttoaddressCO2emissionsofsportingevents.Spectatorstraveledfurthertoattendtheon-CFEhigh-densityareaincomparisontotheoff-CFElow-densityareasandgeneratedalargeramountofCO2emissionstravelingtoanon-CFE.ThelargestamountofCO2emissionswasgeneratedfromspectatorswhotraveledmorethan80milestoattendtheon-CFE.Thisndingisinconsistentwithliteratureinplanning.Accordingtostudies,high-densityareashavelessthan20miles'radiusandthereforepeopletypicallytravelnomorethan20miles.However,whenasportingeventtakesplace,peopletravelgreaterdistancestoattendtheevent.Insportmanagementliterature,thereisnostudythatassociatesthisphenomenoninconcertwithplanningtheories.Non-studentstraveledthefurthesttoattendtheon-CFE,andthenon-studentspectatorsidentiedasalumni[60].Therefore,thenegativeenvironmentalimpactmaybeanoutcomeofanemotionalbondingofalumniwiththecampusandstadiumoftheon-CFE[27].Thesenseofplaceconceptisausefultheoreticalframeworkinconcertwithenvironmentalsustainabilityandurbanplanning[27].Spectatorsthattraveledgreaterthan80milestoattendtheon-CFEcanbeidentiedassportingeventtourists[20,27].

PAGE 14

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 14of18Descriptivestatisticsindicatedthatmostofthespectatorsthatattendedtheoff-CFEtraveledbetween20and40miles.Itcanbeassumedthatspectatorsoftheon-CFEpreferredthestadiumlocationmorethanthespectatorsoftheoff-CFE,perhapsbecausetheon-CFEisthepreferredlocationforevent-relatedactivitiese.g.,tailgating[27].Itcanalsobeassumedthatspectatorsinanon-CFEmaysubconsciouslybelievethereisaperceivedpositivebehavioraloutcomeassociatedwithbeingon-campusandengaginginmultiplesocialactivities[27].Urbanplanningshouldincludeexternalconceptsanddevelopmentswhenidentifyingareasassustainable.Urbanplanningshouldconsiderthatinasportcontext,ahigh-densityareamaynotbeenvironmentallyfriendlierthanalow-densityarea,aspeoplethatareinvolvedwithsportshavedifferentperspectiveforsportingeventattendanceduetotheiremotionalbondingwiththeirfavoriteteam,stadium,anduniversity.Sportspectatorsmaytravelandusenon-eco-friendlymeansoftransportationtowatchtheirfavoriteteam.Ontheotherhand,thismaybebenecialfortheoreticalconceptsinplanning,astheycanincorporatefactorsthatrepresenthumanemotionsandinvolvement.4.2.PracticalImplicationsThisstudyprovidedpracticalinformationtourbanplanners,universitydecisionmakers,stakeholdersandsportingeventmarketers.Athleticfacilitiesshouldbecarefullydesignedandlocatedwithspecialattentiontoenvironmentalimpactandfanattachmenttoplaceandteam,asmillionsofpeopleusethesefacilities,especiallyforcollegiatefootball,overthelifeofthestadium.Stadiumlocationeffectsspectators'transportationmodechoiceandCO2emissions.TransportationmodesanddistancestraveledbyspectatorslargelyinuencedCO2emissions.Resultsshowedthattherearedifferencesinenvironmentalimpactamongthetransportationmodeschosenbyspectators.Publictransportation,e.g.,busormetro,isthefavoredmodeinahigh-densityarea,andhaslessimpactontheenvironment[61].However,spectatorsintheon-CFEdidnotutilizecarpoolingasmuchasspectatorsintheoff-CFE,i.e.,manydrovealoneorusedpublictransportation.Spectatorsintheoff-CFEchosetocarpooloruseabus.Moreover,itwasfoundthatcarpoolingwassignicantlydifferentfromeco-friendlymodesintermsofCO2emissionsperperson.Manyon-CFEspectatorspreferredtousevehicles,evenforshortdistances.Thismayindicatethatspectatorsintheon-CFEdidnotconsidertheenvironmentwhenchoosingtheirtransportationmodeoritmayjustbemoreconvenienttotakethecar.Spectatorsusecarsandcarpoolmoreoften,perhapsbecausetheytailgatepriorthegameandthereforeneedavehicletotransportfood,drinks,games,television,etc.Attheoff-CFE,ndingsshowedthatbothcarpoolandbusmodesimpactCO2emissionssignicantly.SpectatorswhotookthebusgeneratedsignicantlylessCO2emissionscomparedtospectatorswhocarpooled.Theoff-CFEshouldaimtopromotealternativewaysforspectatorstoattendtheeventthatwillgeneratelittletonoCO2emissions.Busseswereprovidedbytheoff-CFEuniversityforstudenttransportationfromthecampustothestadium.Supportingadditionalbususagefornon-studentsinadditionwouldreduceCO2emissionsattheoff-CFE.On-CFEspectatorstravelinggreaterthan80milesprimarilyusedcars,andthereareopportunitiestointroducebusandcarpoolingmodesforlongertraveldistances.Theoff-CFEhasarelativelyexpensiveparkingfeeforcars.Ifsportingevents'parkinghasahighcost,spectatorsmaybemorelikelytousepublictransportationifavailableandcarpool.Intermsofrecommendations,botheventlocationsshouldpromotetransportationalternativeswithlowtonoassociatedcarbonemissions,e.g.,busandeco-friendlymodescomparedtocar/scooterandcarpoolmodes,parkingpoliciesshouldbereviewed,e.g.,on-CFEprovidesfreeparkingoncampus,andlastly,recognizingthatthelocationoftheeventinanareathatisurban,dense,andservedbypublictransportationwillnotnecessarilyreducetheaggregateimpactofspectator'straveltoandfromtheeventwithoutotherpoliciesandincentives[62].MilesTraveledGroupImpactsforEqual90,000StadiumCapacitiesSpectatorsthattraveledmilesormorewereresponsibleforgenerating1,069,600kgof1,140,300kgCO2generatedtotraveltotheon-CFE.Spectatorsthattraveled60to80milescontributed

PAGE 15

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 15of18198,400kgof397,200kgCO2generatedtotraveltotheoff-CFE.Scholarsandpractitionerspromotetheconstructionofon-CFEbecauseitisbelievedtohaveagreaterbenet[12,63].IntermsoftransportationCO2emissions,thisstudyshowsthatoff-CFEcanhaveloweremissions.Ultimately,itisimportanttoconsiderallfactors,theoreticalframeworks,andtheirlimitationswhenconsideringconstructionofstadiums.Thestrengthoftheattachmentthatspectatorshavewithacampusorteammaybeveryimportant,anditisnotclearhowinuentialstadiumlocationisoninducingsporttourism. 4.3.LimitationsThisstudywasconductedattwodifferentcollegiatefootballeventsinthesoutheasternUS,wherethecapacitiesofthetwostadiumswerenotequaltheon-CFEcapacitywasapproximately90,000,whereastheoff-CFEcapacitywasapproximately64,300.Datawerecollectedrandomlyinareaswherespectatorsweretailgating,andthesamplepopulationsresultedindifferentdistributionsofstudentsandnon-studentsatthetwolocations.Theoff-CFEsamplewas81%non-students,whereastheon-CFEwas59%students.Thisunequaldistributionofstudentsandnon-studentsmayaffecttheresults.Fortheoff-CFE,studentsusedbusesthatwereprovidedbytheuniversity'stransportationsystemandanytraveltoabusstopwasnotaccountedfor.Itwasassumedthatallstudentsthatusedthebuswerelivingoncampus.Inaddition,noneoftheoff-CFEspectatorsthatweresurveyedutilizedeco-friendlytransportationordrovealonewithacar/scooter.Therefore,thisprovidednodatatocomparetotheon-CFEinthesetransportationmodes.Theoff-CFEonlyincludedcarpoolersandbususers,wherethecarpoolerscomprisedof93.5%ofthesamplepopulationandbususers6.5%.Thecurrentstudyexaminedthedifferencesbetweenanon-CFEandoff-CFEbyconsideringtheoff-CFEasalow-densityarea.Aninvestigationofanoff-CFEinahigh-densityareamayprovideadditionalinsights.Finally,thestudydidnotincludethetransportationimpactsofmembersofthemedia,athletesandcoaches,medical,security,ofcials,andothersupportstaff. 4.4.FutureResearchTheongoingresearchonlyexaminedtheimpactofspectator'stransportationchoiceswhentravelingtoasportsevent.Tobetterunderstandthetotalimpactofcollegiatesportingeventstakingplaceaton-CFEandoff-CFE,furtherresearchshouldfocusonCO2emissionsgeneratedbythefacilities'operationconsideringfactorssuchasenergyusage,waterusage,andactivitiesofparticipantsandspectatorsduringthesportingevent.Futurestudiesshouldalsofocusongenerationofwasteandfoodandbeverageconsumption.ThiswillgenerateabetterestimateoftheoverallimpactthatcollegiatefootballeventshaveonCO2emissionsandtheenvironment.Thesurveywaslimited,andafuturesurveyshouldgathermoreinformationon,forexample,whythespecictransportationmodewaschosen.Afuturestudyshouldbeconductedtoexploretheenvironmentalimpactsofanoff-CFEthatisinahigh-densityarea.Finally,studiesintheUSandCanadafounddistancestraveledaregreateronaveragethaninEngland[18].Theaveragetraveldistanceofspectator'sroundtriptravelwas116milesor186.7km,comparabletoEdwardsandcolleagues,whofoundanaveragetraveldistanceof124milesor199.8kmandDolfandcolleagues,whofoundanaveragetraveldistanceof116milesor186km[4,17].RoundtriptraveltofootballsoccereventsinEnglandwasfoundtobe25.8milesor41.5km[18].Itisnotclearifthedifferencesareprimarilycausedbylocation,i.e.,NorthAmericaversusUnitedKingdom,orthecontext,i.e.,collegiateversusprofessional. Acknowledgments:TheauthorswouldliketoexpressappreciationtoUniversityofFloridaOpenAccessPublishingFundUFOAPF,asthepublicationofthisarticlewasfundedinpartbytheUFOAPF. AuthorContributions:StavrosTriantafyllidisandRobertJ.Riesconceivedanddesignedtheresearch,developedtheanalysis,andwrotethepaper;KyriakiKikiKaplanidoureviewedthearticle. ConictsofInterest: Theauthorsdeclarenoconictofinterest.

PAGE 16

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 16of18 Abbreviations On-CFEOn-campuscollegiatefootballevent Off-CFEOff-campuscollegiatefootballevent GHGGreenhouseGases CO 2 CarbonDioxide ANLArgonneNationalLaboratory NCAANationalCollegiateAthleticAssociation GREETGreenhouseGasesRegulatedEmissionsandEnergyuseinTransportation SPSSStatisticalPackageforSocialScience SDStandarddeviation USUnitedStatesofAmerica AppendixA.SupplementalInformation TableA1. Questionnaire. Cases Transportation Modes Numberof PeopleInside theVehicle Miles Traveled Timeof Arrivalat theVenue WatchCollegiate FootballEvents In-StadiumTicket HoldersorJustTailgate Studentor Non-Student Gender Case# Number Car/Scooter Carpool Bus Eco-Friendly #Numberof people #Number ofMiles Time TicketHolders JustTailgate Student Alumni OtherParents-not afliatedwiththe university Male Female #isthenumericalnumber. References 1.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.GreenhouseGasEmissions.Availableonline:https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissi.ons/overview-greenhouse-gasesaccessedon26January2017. 2.Collins,A.;Flynn,A.Engagingwiththeecologicalfootprintasadecision-makingtool:Processandresponses.LocalEnviron. 2007 12 ,295.[CrossRef] 3.Collins,A.;Jones,C.;Munday,M.Assessingtheenvironmentalimpactsofmegasportingevents:Twooptions? Tour.Manag. 2009 30 ,828.[CrossRef] 4.Dolf,M.;Teehan,P.ReducingthecarbonfootprintofspectatorandteamtravelattheUniversityofBritishColumbia'svarsitysportsevents. SportManag.Rev. 2015 18 ,244.[CrossRef] 5.Schmidt,C.W.Puttingtheearthinplay:Environmentalawarenessandsports.Environ.HealthPerspect.2006,114 ,A286.[CrossRef][PubMed] 6.Collins,A.;Cooper,C.Measuringandmanagingtheenvironmentalimpactoffestivals:ThecontributionoftheEcologicalFootprint. J.Sustain.Tour. 2017 25 ,148.[CrossRef] 7.Schmied,M.;Hochfield,C.;Stahl,H.;Roth,R.;Armbruster,F.;Turk,S.;Fiedl,C.GreenChampionsinSportandEnvironment:GuidetoEnvironmentally-SoundLargeSportingEvents;NatureConservationandNuclearSafety,BerlinandGermanOlympicSportsConfederation,DivisionDevelopmentofSports:Frankfurt,German,2007.8.Mann,M.E.;Kump,L.R.DirePredictions:UnderstandingGlobalWarming;DKPublishing:NewYork,NY,USA,2008. 9.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgram.SportandtheEnvironment.Availableonline:http://www.unenvironment.org/accessedon17October2017. 10.Chernushenko,D.GreeningOurGames:RunningSportsEventsandFacilitiesthatWon'tCosttheEarth;CenturionPublishing&Marketing:Ottawa,ON,Canada,1994. 11.DuPreez,E.;Heath,E.Determiningtheinuenceofthesocialversusphysicalcontextonenvironmentallyresponsiblebehaviouramongcyclingspectators. J.SportTour. 2016 20 ,123.[CrossRef] 12.Kellison,T.B.;Mondello,M.J.Organizationalperceptionmanagementinsport:Theuseofcorporatepro-environmentalbehaviourfordesiredfacilityreferendaoutcomes.SportManag.Rev.2012,15,500.[CrossRef]

PAGE 17

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 17of18 13.McCullough,B.P.;Cunningham,G.B.Recyclingintentionsamongyouthbaseballspectators.Int.J.SportManag.Mark. 2011 10 ,104.[CrossRef] 14.Casper,J.M.;Pfahl,M.E.;McCullough,B.Intercollegiatesportandtheenvironment:Examiningfanengagementbasedonathleticsdepartmentsustainabilityefforts. J.IssuesIntercoll.Athl. 2014 7 ,65. 15.Collins,A.;Flynn,A.Measuringtheenvironmentalsustainabilityofamajorsportingevent:AcasestudyoftheFACupFinal. Tour.Econ. 2008 14 ,751.[CrossRef] 16.Collins,A.;Munday,M.;Roberts,A.Environmentalconsequencesoftourismconsumptionatmajorevents:AnanalysisoftheUKstagesofthe2007TourdeFrance. J.TravelRes. 2012 51 ,577.[CrossRef] 17.Edwards,L.;Knight,J.;Handler,R.;Abraham,J.;Blowers,P.ThemethodologyandresultsofusinglifecycleassessmenttomeasureandreducethegreenhousegasemissionsfootprintofMajorEventsattheUniversityofArizona. In.J.LifeCycleAssess. 2016 21 ,536.[CrossRef] 18.Dosumu,A.;Colbeck,I.;Bragg,R.GreenhousegasemissionsasaresultofspectatorstravellingtofootballinEngland. Sci.Rep. 2017 7 ,6986.[CrossRef][PubMed] 19.Kaplanidou,K.;Kerwin,S.;Karadakis,K.Understandingsporteventsuccess:Exploringperceptionsofsporteventconsumersandeventproviders. J.SportTour. 2013 18 ,137.[CrossRef] 20.Gibson,H.J.;Willming,C.;Holdnak,A.Small-scaleeventsporttourism:Fansastourists.Tour.Manag.2003,24 ,181.[CrossRef] 21.TheNationalCollegiateAthleticAssociation.2016NationalCollegeFootballAttendance.Availableonline:http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2016.pdfaccessedon30November2017. 22.Crossman,M.Whentheparty'sover. SportingNews ,2008,p.232. 23.Pfahl,M.Theenvironmentalawakeninginsports. Solutions 2013 4 ,67. 24.Toma,J.D.FootballU.:SpectatorSportsintheLifeoftheAmericanUniversity;UniversityofMichiganPress:AnnArbor,MI,USA,2003. 25.Casper,J.M.;Pfahl,M.E.EnvironmentalsustainabilitypracticesinUSNCAADivisionIIIathleticsdepartments.Int.J.EventManag.Res.2015,10.Availableonline:http://www.ijemr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Casper-Pfahl1.pdfaccessedon15November2017. 26.Kaplanidou,K.;Vogt,C.Themeaningandmeasurementofasporteventexperienceamongactivesporttourists. J.SportManag. 2010 24 ,544.[CrossRef] 27.McCullough,B.;Kellison,T.Gogreenforthehometeam:Senseofplaceandenvironmentalsustainabilityinsport.Sustain.Educ.2016,11.Availableonline:http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/McCulloughKellison-Feb-16-11-Issue-PDF-Ready1.pdfaccessedon3October2017. 28.Kaplanidou,K.;Gibson,H.J.Predictingbehavioralintentionsofactiveeventsporttourists:Thecaseofasmall-scalerecurringsportsevent. J.SportTour. 2010 15 ,163.[CrossRef] 29.Taylor,N. UrbanPlanningTheorySince1945 ;Sage:ThousandOaks,CA,USA,1998. 30.Horbach,J.;Rammer,C.;Rennings,K.Determinantsofeco-innovationsbytypeofenvironmentalimpactTheroleofregulatorypush/pull,technologypushandmarketpull.Ecol.Econ.2012,78,112.[CrossRef] 31.Wiedmann,T.;Minx,J.Adenitionof`carbonfootprint'. Ecol.Econ.Res.Trends 2008 1 ,1. 32.Wicker,P.Thecarbonfootprintofactivesporttourists:Anempiricalanalysisofskiersandboarders.J.SportTour. 2017 ,1.[CrossRef] 33.Funk,D.;Jordan,J.;Ridinger,L.;Kaplanidou,K.Capacityofmassparticipantsporteventsforthedevelopmentofactivitycommitmentandfutureexerciseintention.LeisureSci.2011,33,250.[CrossRef]34.Kaplanidou,K.;Vogt,C.TheInterrelationshipbetweenSportEventandDestinationImageandSportTourists'Behaviours. J.SportTour. 2007 12 ,183.[CrossRef] 35.Froehlich,J.;Dillahunt,T.;Klasnja,P.;Mankoff,J.;Consolvo,S.;Harrison,B.;Landay,J.A.UbiGreen:InvestigatingaMobileToolforTrackingandSupportingGreenTransportationHabits,ProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems ;ACM:NewYork,NY,USA,2009;pp.1043. 36.Death,C.`Greening'the2010FIFAWorldCup:Environmentalsustainabilityandthemega-eventinSouthAfrica. J.Environ.PolicyPlan. 2011 13 ,99.[CrossRef] 37.Ahmed,F.;Pretorius,L.Mega-eventsandenvironmentalimpacts:The2010FIFAWorldCupinSouthAfrica.Soc.Leg.SportMega-Events 2010 17 ,274. 38.Hayes,G.;Horne,J.Sustainabledevelopment,shockandawe?London2012andcivilsociety.Sociology2011,45 ,749.[CrossRef]

PAGE 18

Sustainability 2018 10 ,241 18of18 39.Hidrue,M.K.;Parsons,G.R.;Kempton,W.;Gardner,M.P.Willingnesstopayforelectricvehiclesandtheirattributes. Resour.EnergyEcon. 2011 33 ,686.[CrossRef] 40.Parsons,G.R.;Hidrue,M.K.;Kempton,W.;Gardner,M.P.CanVehicle-to-GridRevenueHelpElectricVehiclesontheMarket? Work.Pap. 2011 66 ,33. 41.Chard,C.;Mallen,C.Examiningthelinkagesbetweenautomobileuseandcarbonimpactsofcommunity-basedicehockey. SportManag.Rev. 2012 15 ,476.[CrossRef] 42.Friedmann,J.Whydoplanningtheory? Plan.Theory 2003 2 ,7.[CrossRef] 43.Wheeler,S.M.;Beatley,T. TheSustainableUrbanDevelopmentReader ;Routledge:NewYork,NY,USA,2014. 44.Jones,C.;Kammen,D.M.SpatialdistributionofUShouseholdcarbonfootprintsrevealssuburbanizationunderminesgreenhousegasbenetsofurbanpopulationdensity.Environ.Sci.Technol.2014,48,895.[CrossRef][PubMed] 45.Newman,P.;Kenworthy,J.SustainabilityandCities:OvercomingAutomobileDependence;IslandPress:Washington,DC,USA,1999. 46.Norman,J.;MacLean,H.L.;Kennedy,C.A.Comparinghighandlowresidentialdensity:Life-cycleanalysisofenergyuseandgreenhousegasemissions. J.UrbanPlan.Dev. 2006 132 ,10.[CrossRef] 47.Mastny,L. StateoftheWorld ;IslandPress:Washington,DC,USA,2015. 48.Chen,C.;Gong,H.;Paaswell,R.Roleofthebuiltenvironmentonmodechoicedecisions:Additionalevidenceontheimpactofdensity. Transportation 2008 35 ,285.[CrossRef] 49.UniversityAthleticAssociation.Availableonline:http://uaasports.info/landing/indexaccessedon5October2017. 50.ArgonneNationalLaboratory.GREETModelDevelopmentandApplications.Availableonline:https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=greetdotnetaccessedon4October2017. 51.Searchinger,T.;Heimlich,R.;Houghton,R.A.;Dong,F.;Elobeid,A.;Fabiosa,J.;Tokgoz,S.;Hayes,D.;Yu,T.-H.UseofUScroplandsforbiofuelsincreasesgreenhousegasesthroughemissionsfromland-usechange. Science 2008 319 ,1238.[CrossRef][PubMed] 52.Burnham,A.UserGuidefortheGREETFleetFootprintCalculator1.1;ArgonneTransportationTechnologyR&DCenter:Forest,WI,USA,2009. 53.Wang,M.Q.DevelopmentandUseofGREET1.6Fuel-CycleModelforTransportationFuelsandVehicleTechnologies;ArgonneNationalLaboratory:Forest,WI,USA,2001. 54.Wang,M. GREET1.5a ;ArgonneNationalLaboratory:Forest,WI,USA,2000. 55.Wang,M.Q.GREET1.5TransportationFuel-CycleModel-Vol.1:Methodology,Development,Use,andResults;ArgonneNationalLaboratory:Forest,WI,USA,1999. 56.Wang,M.GREET1.0TransportationFuelCyclesModel:MethodologyandUse;ArgonneNationalLaboratory:Forest,WI,USA,1996. 57.Hair,J.F.;Black,W.C.;Babin,B.J.;Anderson,R.E.Canonicalcorrelation:Asupplementtomultivariatedataanalysis.InMultivariateDataAnalysis:AGlobalPerspective,7thed.;PearsonPrenticeHallPublishing:UpperSaddleRiver,NJ,USA,2010. 58.Goodland,R.Theconceptofenvironmentalsustainability. Annu.Rev.Ecol.Syst. 1995 26 ,1.[CrossRef] 59.Robinson,N.A.Beyondsustainability:EnvironmentalmanagementfortheAnthropoceneepoch.J.PublicAff. 2012 12 ,181.[CrossRef] 60.Filo,K.;Funk,D.;O'Brien,D.Theantecedentsandoutcomesofattachmentandsponsorimagewithincharitysportevents. J.SportManag. 2010 24 ,623.[CrossRef] 61.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.GreenhouseGasEmissions;U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency:Washington,DC,USA,2017. 62.Auchincloss,A.H.;Weinberger,R.;Aytur,S.;Namba,A.;Ricchezza,A.Publicparkingfeesandnes:AsurveyofUScities. PublicWorksManag.Policy 2015 20 ,49.[CrossRef] 63.Trendalova,S.;Kellison,T.B.;Spearman,L.EnvironmentalsustainabilityinsportfacilitiesinEastTennessee.J.Facil.Plan.Des.Manag. 2014 2 ,1. 2018bytheauthors.LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.ThisarticleisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsandconditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionCCBYlicensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.