G Model

SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Water management in sport

Pamm Phillips *, Paul Turner
Deakin University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:
Received 9 January 2013
Received in revised form 15 August 2013
Accepted 17 August 2013

Teaching note

Australia (like many other nations around the globe) faces the prospect of more frequent and severe droughts as a result
of climate change (Nelson, Howden, & Stafford Smith, 2008). Local facilities that underpin the sport industry in Australia
have already been impacted significantly by drought and subsequent restrictions on water use. There is growing evidence to
suggest that at least some sports in the sector have suffered due to their facilities having lack of access to water (Connolly &
Bell, 2007; Sleeman, 2007; Sport & Recreation Victoria, 2007; VicSport, 2007a, 2007b). From such evidence, it is clear that
sports that use large quantities of water for the maintenance of their facility’s playing fields (such as turf-based sports like
Australian Rules football, cricket, soccer and clay-based tennis courts) were severely impacted by drought conditions that
emerged in the period between 2000 and 2010 in the State of Victoria, as well as other regions within Australia. The evidence
suggests that these drought conditions resulted in many local councils and state governments imposing water restrictions on
their communities. Restrictions extended to households watering gardens, and importantly, for this case study, regulation of
watering community level participation-focused turf playing fields for football codes in one particular municipality.
Internationally there is similar evidence mounting about the impact of drought on sport. For example, in the US, Denver
Parks and Recreation (the local council) reported that it was closing grass sporting fields from the beginning of the spring
season (February, 2013) until April 1 2013 for soccer and lacrosse due to drought (Anon, 2013). In the UK, horse racing meets
have been cancelled (Anon, 2012) due to lack of available water to maintain tracks to a safe standard. The problem of drought
is clearly one of global significance, and sport organisations regardless of their geographic location need to be aware of the
potential impact on their sports.
The case is structured to lead students through a complex set of circumstances. First, the case study provides a
background about the broad issues related to water use in society, and its subsequent management. It then examines the use
of water in sport and extends into a case study of water management crisis within one regional municipality (the City of
Greater Geelong [CoGG]). The CoGG experienced severe drought and subsequent water restrictions. These water restrictions
had an impact on the turf-based sports in the CoGG, in that some were forced to cease all activity, while others had severely
restricted access to facilities for competition as well as training. The issues associated with the local Council and Water
Management Corporation of the CoGG and the sport organisations in coming to agreement on how the water crisis was to be
managed is illuminated throughout this case.

* Corresponding author at: Sport Management Program, School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood 3125,
Australia. Tel.: +61 392446936.
E-mail address: Pamm.Phillips@deakin.edu.au (P. Phillips).

1441-3523/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

2 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

The case is based on a specific locality in Australia (the CoGG) and is based on real data. The issues raised, however, are
generalisable internationally. The authors could have chosen to replace the name of the local Council with a fictitious one—
and the instructor may wish to do so for the purposes of having students identify with the case. The sports identified in the
case are also the actual ones that were impacted in the CoGG. Instructors could choose to de-identify the sports completely
(call them sport A, B, C, and D). What the sports are is not the focus of the case—the focus is what they require in terms of
water usage. If the instructor wishes to replace the names of the sports for international relevance, it is clearly possible.
Soccer and Rugby Union might be internationally relevant while the AFL may not be. The instructor could, for example,
replace the sports identified in this case with any other sport that might be relevant for their needs (for example, field
hockey, NFL, flag football, lacrosse, and baseball may be alternatives). This would be based on appropriate matching of the
popularity of the sport in the region, and its water requirements based on the issues presented in the case. There is
information about each of the sports in the case itself, and Appendix A refers to specific water requirements for each. This
information will assist instructors to consider relevant alternatives if desired.
Embedded in this case are a range of issues which broadly include social perceptions of sport and its environmental
impacts and sustainability (e.g., Spector, Chard, Mallen, & Hyatt, 2012), corporate social responsibility (e.g., Babiak & Wolfe,
2006; Kellison & Mondello, 2012), and facility management (e.g., Westerbeek et al., 2005). More specifically, however, the
data in this case lend itself readily to issues of strategic management, and in particular an analysis of strategy as it relates to
stakeholder management, and strategy in sport development. That is, through the case, students are asked to consider
strategic decisions about relationships between a variety of stakeholders (such as sport organisations, a Water Management
Corporation, and a local Council) that will impact the survival of sport, the degradation of city assets, and the distribution of
water during a time of severe water shortage. Further, students are asked to consider how a lack of water can impact sport
development. The case proceeds by introducing the theoretical background for strategy as it relates to stakeholder
management and to sport development.

1. Theoretical background for the case

In Australia, it has been shown that sport is considered to be an important part of the social fabric of communities
(Shilbury & Kellett, 2011). At the professional level, hosting world standard sport events has become a valid strategy for
positioning Australia on the world stage, and it is supported by federal and state governments, and local councils across the
country (Funk, Toohey, & Bruun, 2007). Further, the need for Australia to have internationally successful sport teams is also
supported by the federal government with almost half of the sport budget dedicated to high performance sport (Shilbury &
Kellett, 2011). These are important factors that contribute to Australia’s self-perception as a sporting nation (Bloomfield,
2003). However, perhaps more important to note is that in 2010/11 sixty five percent of the Australian population aged
fifteen years and over participated in physical activity for exercise, recreation or sport (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012).
It is also this broad participation base that feeds the elite sport performances upon which Australia relies (e.g., Shilbury &
Kellett, 2011). In order to cater for mass participation, facilities are required.
In Australian society, sport and recreation has been developed on a ‘‘club’’ based system where the sport teams (or clubs)
rely on facilities. Nearly fifty percent of government funding for sport in Australia comes via local councils, through which the
majority of sport infrastructure (facilities including playing fields and amenities) have been developed for sport
organisations (clubs) to use. In general, sport organisations at the community level lease facilities from their local councils
and manage them on a day-to-day basis through the work of dedicated volunteers. Facilities are generally maintained on a
long term basis (such as ensuring that turf is watered, fertilised, and kept in a condition suitable for play) by local councils
that own them (Shilbury & Kellett, 2011).
It is increasingly recognised by government authorities internationally, whether acting at the federal, state or local level,
that participation in sport can be used as a tool to engage people and develop sense of community (Vail, 2007). In this way,
sport facilities, many of which rely on the provision of water, are inextricably linked with communities. Facilities and the
utilities that sustain them (such as water in this case) then become an increasingly important consideration. Without sport
facilities, or access to them to play sport, many of the benefits that sport can provide to a society are lost.
Competition and cooperation are central to strategy in sport management (Shilbury, 2012). Shilbury (2012) argues that
sport is a unique context to view strategy as organisations compete against each other while simultaneously cooperating
with each other for survival. At the professional level of sport, for example, teams compete against each other on the field of
play, but need to cooperate with each other for a league to survive (e.g., Dickson, Arnold, & Chalip, 2005). At the community
level of sport, this case study illuminates the way in which sport organisations now have to compete against each other for
the scarce resource of water. However, it also demonstrates that, simultaneously, sport organisations need to cooperate with
one another (and with their local councils and water management corporations) to share the water resource so that each of
them has the maximum opportunity to continue to deliver their sports and even survive.
The resource-based view of strategy may be an appropriate framework to bring to bear on this case. This view of strategy
focusses on how organisations may gain competitive advantage over others by their ability to secure resources for
themselves (Furrer, Thomas, & Goussevskaia, 2008) or to develop core competencies as resources (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990).
In this case, water is the core resource that sport organisations need to secure, and the options to gain competitive advantage
include either to: (1) secure their home facility as one that will receive a water allocation; (2) secure access to a facility that
receives water; or (3) develop relationships with key stakeholders that will act as core competencies to facilitate their access

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 3

to water for their own facility, or access to a facility that receives water. The task of managing stakeholders may be the first
consideration, and it is to stakeholder management that the discussion turns next.
Stakeholder management is widely identified within the literature as an essential aspect for managers to understand
(Covell, 2005; Freeman, 1984; Welty-Peachey & Bruening, 2011). Stakeholders can be considered as the groups that an
organisation has relationships with, and the way these stakeholders affect each other through the decisions that they each
make is key to understanding stakeholder management (Turner, 2012). Stakeholders each have some stake in the operations
of a particular organisation, having invested money, time or other resources in order to obtain the opportunity for profitable
return (Welty-Peachey & Bruening, 2011). Regardless of the size and set-up of the organisations involved, the way these
organisations interact, influence decisions, and push forward their values and ideas, all have an impact on the outcomes and
decisions that are reached. Acknowledging the involvement of stakeholders is important for managers in organisations as it
provides a window to understand who managers need to listen to and why (Covell, 2004). For example, stakeholders may
possess power, legitimacy, or urgency in their needs that will reinforce their right to be heard by managers (Lewis, 2007;
Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Welty-Peachey & Bruening, 2011). In the current case, for example, students are encouraged to
review why one type of football (a code) might have more power, legitimacy or urgency in their need for water over the other
types of football (codes), and other sports in general. The way in which the code of Australian Football League (AFL or
Australian Rules) football have influence in the CoGG in this case plays an important part in the way that each of the
organisations thinks about its own stakeholder management.
In the context of stakeholder management, Frooman (1999) identified the types of strategies that stakeholders might use
to influence organisations depending on their circumstances and resource requirements. Frooman (1999) refers to resource
control and influence pathways which both apply in this case. Resource control can be identified by either withholding or
usage strategies. Withholding strategies occur when a stakeholder discontinues, or threatens to discontinue, the supply of
resources to a firm with the intention of forcing change in certain behaviours (Heffernan & O’Brien, 2010). In this case,
withholding of water through both the Water Corporation and local Council regulations forces sport organisations to re-
think their behaviours, in terms of the use of water and in terms of their relationships with the key providers and other user
groups (competing sport organisations).
The usage approach identified by Frooman (1999) relates to the identification of the actor(s) supplying resources (in this
case water) to an organisation. The existence of these actors can open up pathways of direct and indirect influence through
which control can be exerted (Heffernan & O’Brien, 2010). Direct influence strategies occur where a stakeholder can
manipulate the flow of resources unilaterally. The Water Corporation and the local Council are both in a strong position to
influence the flow of resources (water) in this case. Indirect influence involves communication and coalition building
between stakeholders in order to influence organisation behaviour. The sport organisations will be required to form alliances
and develop common interests in order to adjust to the situation they are now faced with.
Water as a resource also impacts sport development. Sport development has been conceptualised in two ways: The
development of sport represents the development of infrastructure and resources to build the capacity of sport delivery and
transition (Green, 2005). The development of sport has been focused on the way in which sport is managed to facilitate skill
development and performance. In contrast, development through sport is where sport is considered as a tool by which to
enact positive change for individuals and communities (Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010).
There has been a growing body of research that identifies the key stakeholders and processes in the development of sport
in Australia. For example, Sotiriadou, Shilbury, & Quick (2008) note that at the core of any sport development pathway is
facilities, and they identify local councils as key stakeholders in this process, at least in the Australian setting. In this case,
students are challenged to think about the way that a water management corporation, which provides water to local council
and therefore in turn to the sport organisations which use the facilities, has become a key stakeholder that influences many
aspect of sport development—governance, processes, sport delivery, accessibility, and ultimately how and where individuals
can train for their chosen sports. In essence, the Water Management Corporation and local Council in this case are dictating
the sport development processes that can (or cannot) occur in the CoGG. Students need to consider the implications for
having water management corporations and local councils making decisions on all aspects of sport organisation and
management at the local level given that they control the key resource of water.
One of the other interesting areas of further discussion from this case study lies in the area of development through sport.
Sport has been targeted in many nations as being a context that can be used to facilitate social improvement (MacIntosh &
Spence, 2012), and it has already been noted that community sport facilities can be an important place for such impact to
occur (Vail, 2007). As noted in this case study, local councils that own the facilities are concerned that their facilities,
described as city assets, will be damaged if play occurs on them when the surface is unable to cope with it. In other words,
local councils need to ensure the longevity of their assets, not only for financial benefit, but also as places for communities to
use into the future.
There is another element of development through sport that is highlighted in this case. As water becomes scarcer, sport
organisations need to lobby for the continued access to facilities. In this way, they need to make a case that provides sound
reasoning as to why their particular sport should be supported to continue. The case study forces students to deliberate over
which sports should get access to the facilities, and part of that consideration is to develop a profile of the kind of impact it
has on the community.
This teaching note provides some introductory activities that an instructor can use in order to encourage engagement in
the issues surrounding the case itself, as well as to provide an opportunity for learning assurance. That is, the group activities

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

4 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

described below can assist the instructor to ensure all students understand the concepts that the case evokes. The teaching
note then provides accompanying questions for the case that might be appropriate for written assignments and reports.

2. Introductory activity

To set the scene for students, it is important for them to have read the case, and to have an understanding of it prior to
undertaking the activities associated with the case study. It is suggested that the instructor consider first introducing the
case and the concept of water management in sport by facilitating a debate about the role of sport in society, and
subsequently the importance of water as a resource. A suggested debate topic is: ‘In times where water is scarce, sport and
recreation facilities should be given priority access to water use as sport is essential to society’. The instructor can then move
into more specific application to the case by conducting the described role play where students first take on the perspectives
of personnel from the key stakeholder groups involved in water management.

2.1. Role play

The role play involves groups of 10 students acting out a meeting. Each student plays a role of one of the ten of the major
stakeholders in the CoGG who deal with water management. The meeting is designed to be a process of consultation
between the stakeholders to better understand their needs, perspectives, and potential solutions in the face of the water
management crisis. As noted in the case, and in the descriptions of personnel below, there are vested interests, power
positions, and societal biases about sport per se in the CoGG, and in particular around the sport of Australian Rules football.
The local Council advised the stakeholders that due to the drought the number of fields available for use had been reduced
from 120 to 16. The aim of each of the personnel (roles) is to state their need for water, and the reasons why their home-field
should be the one that is allocated water.
The roles/personnel. Stakeholder attendees at the meeting are outlined in the following section:

Greg—task manager, Department of Sport and Recreation, local Council. Greg’s role in the local Council is to facilitate sport
participation in the CoGG. His main task is to ensure that the residents of the CoGG all have equal access to sport
participation opportunities by ensuring that the CoGG supplies appropriate numbers of safe facilities throughout the
municipality. Greg is attending the meeting on behalf of the Council, and it is part of his role to ensure that the city’s assets
(all of the sport facilities, parks, and open spaces) are maintained and appropriately looked after while still providing an
outlet for sport participation. His attendance at this meeting is complex because he needs to allow for sport participation
to continue, but also to balance the use of the turf fields with both safety and maintenance requirements that exist.
Manny—team leader, Parks, Planning and Recreation Section, local Council. Manny works with Greg in the local Council, and
his role is more hands on in facility management and planning. Manny coordinates a team of five parks and recreation
officers who each are required to visit the Council owned facilities (the 120 sports fields plus other recreation spaces) on a
weekly basis. The purpose of their visits is to evaluate each of the facilities in terms of safety. Manny’s role has become
particularly important in times of drought as his section (Parks, Planning and Recreation Section) continues to review all
facilities, but in particular the 16 turf-based fields that are to remain open are the focus of much of their work, with a high
emphasis on safety. Manny’s role in this meeting is to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the importance of surface
preservation in safety, accessibility, and maintenance of the asset overall.
Peta—special projects team leader for sport, Water Management Corporation. The Water Management Corporation
distributes potable water to residents, businesses, industry and, sport and recreation facilities in the CoGG. Due to the
sport and recreation sector being such a heavy user of potable water, the Water Management Corporation became very
interested in how decisions have been made regarding the use of potable water in sport in the CoGG. Indeed, due to the
importance of sport in the CoGG, and its use of potable water, a position within the Water Management Corporation was
established to oversee its management. Peta was assigned to this role, and has constantly been reviewing the total
allocations of water that have been made to the CoGG for use in its sport and recreation facilities. The Water Management
Corporation has a key role in controlling water consumption in the CoGG and has been continually reducing the total
amount allocated for use, including amounts allocated to sport and recreation, hence the reason for the meeting today
and her participation in it.
Alice—Sports Club Liaison and Development Officer, local Council. Alice, who also works for the Council is the key to
communication between Greg and Manny’s team and the sport organisations that are impacted by the drought. In other
words, the sport organisations that are impacted by the ground closings, the water restrictions, and water management
plan need to go through Alice in order to, in most cases, argue about the impact of water restrictions on them. Further,
Alice is the main contact person for state sport organisations that are also impacted by the drought in the region. Alice has
a difficult role as she most often hears complaints from state sport organisations, local sport organisations, and
municipality representatives that she believes do not seem to fully understand each other’s perspective. Alice is chairing
this gathering of interest groups.
Clinton—President, Rugby Union. Clinton is particularly frustrated and concerned that the sport of Rugby Union in the CoGG
is on the brink of complete collapse through already having reduced access to facilities. His concerns are heightened now
that only 16 grounds will be available for all sports in the CoGG. Even if they are able to use one of the 16 grounds for

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

Rugby Union, it will likely only be allowed for competitive match play, which eliminates training completely. Clinton is
particularly worried about the impact on the development of Rugby Union as a sport. Without being able to conduct
training, skill development is now in jeopardy.
Dennis—President, Rugby League. As Rugby League has only one club in the CoGG and plays all of their ‘‘away’’ games in the
larger metropolitan city of Melbourne, Dennis is resigned to the fact that his sport will not get access to any facilities at all,
and certainly not for training. Dennis realises that even if his sport does get access to a facility, it would be shared with
other sports, most likely with Rugby Union. This concerns Dennis as he is a professional accountant, and the likelihood of
coming to some arrangement of shared revenue/costs from the facility would require extensive negotiation and planning
(e.g., revenue and costs associated with core business areas such as gate receipts, concession sharing, utility costs). He is
sure no one has yet thought about this.
Marcus—Government Liaison Officer, Football (soccer) Federation of Victoria. Marcus’ role is to build relationships with local
councils, in particular around the area of facility access for participation in the sport of soccer. Marcus is attending the
meeting in response to outrage expressed by the Soccer Association in the CoGG with regards to access to grounds. Soccer
in the CoGG has increased its participation base by 5% each year over the last 10 years. The number of women playing
soccer in the CoGG has increased significantly each year during this period and currently over 300 girls and women play
the sport within the CoGG. Marcus is concerned that the lack of facilities available to soccer will negatively impact on this
growth and undo all the good work that the local clubs have done to recruit and retain soccer players. More importantly,
the possibility of allocating grounds to sports other than soccer has the potential to severely impact gender equality in
this and other sports more generally. Specifically for the sport of soccer, despite the growth experienced in the CoGG with
regards to girls and women’s participation, boy’s and men’s participation continues to dominate (with over 1500 male
players within the municipality). However, this gender aspect associated with Marcus’ position is important to consider.
Decreasing the availability of sports fields may hamper growth towards gender equality in participation in soccer in
particular, but also in other sports in general.
The Australian Football League (AFL). The AFL is represented by 3 different personnel at the meeting. Each stakeholder
represents an organisation or group that reflects different levels of the sport, all potentially having different vested
interests. The personnel are described in more detail below.
Sally—Director of the State Country Football League. The State Country Football League represents the interest of football in
regional and rural areas. If there are any issues specific to the development and delivery of rural and regional football, the
State Country Football League lobbies the state sporting organisation and/or local and state government organisations in
the best interests of junior and senior participants, men and women, as well as officials and administrators. Sally wants to
ensure that football will retain a strong presence, with a viable future in the CoGG.
Bob—Representative from the CoGG ‘‘Big Eight’’. The CoGG ‘‘Big Eight’’ consist of the eight largest clubs in the CoGG football
competition. These clubs perceive themselves as the ‘‘Big Eight’’ and as such have sent only one representative to push
their collective interests forward in this meeting. Bob is the president of one of the largest clubs of the Big Eight, which is
the current reigning competition champion. Bob is of the opinion that, without the Big Eight, sport overall in CoGG would
suffer enormously. For example, he argues that the Big Eight cater for the majority of junior participants through their
sport development programming and pathways. For this reason, he will demand that each of the grounds which are the
home facility for the Big Eight clubs are to remain open and maintained appropriately by the Council. His views go even
further to suggest that he will fight adamantly so that each of the Big Eight clubs will retain all of the gate and concession
revenues generated at their venues (i.e. he does not believe in any form of revenue sharing), given that they are the biggest
contributors to the development of the sport in the CoGG.
Isabelle—Representative from a CoGG minor club. Isabelle has been a long term member of the furthest and most isolated
club in the CoGG. Isabelle has been on the board for the past 15 years, and has 3 boys who have played at the club as
juniors and progressed through to the senior team. Isabelle can’t imagine not having the club as part of her life, or the
sport not be a part of her local community. While Isabelle understands the importance of football in the CoGG, and the
precarious water management situation, she is concerned that the Big Eight with clubs based in close proximity to each
other, and within the city boundaries will prosper at the expense of the clubs based beyond the city boundaries.

The role play task. Once personnel have been allocated, students need time to work through the information in order to
successfully conduct the mock meeting. The meeting has four aims:

1. From the perspective of the Council, state the problem to the sport organisations.
2. Outline the impact of the problem on each of the individual sports (Rugby League; Rugby Union; Football; AFL)
3. Collectively reach agreement on solutions to the following issues:
a. Which sports should be allocated water to their existing home grounds?
b. Which sports should be allowed to share the watered fields and why?
c. Which sports will miss out and why?

The meeting. The instructor needs to set the scene for the meeting of the 10 stakeholders. The meeting is to be held in the
Council Town Hall Board Room. It is to be chaired by Alice. Time needs to be allocated for each of the groups to present (aims
1–3) with most time allocated to aim 4 (arriving at solutions).

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

6 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Example of stakeholder matrix.

Stakeholder Resources Legitimacy Power Urgency

What resources What resources Validity of Ability of organisations Need for resolution in
do they have in do they need in claim upon to bring about desired terms of severity of impact
water management? water management? organisations outcomes and time sensitivity

Local Council
Water Corporation
Soccer
Rugby League
Rugby Union
AFL
General public in CoGG

3. Questions for the case

1. Consider a turf-based sport that you are familiar with. From your analysis of the Case, and in particular Appendix A,
what are the alternative sources of water that can be used for that sport? What extra infrastructure or resources would your
alternate source(s) require?

3.1. Sport development questions

1. If sport competitions are unable to be staged at community levels, and training is severely modified due to water
restrictions such as in this case, what are the impacts for sport development?
2. If you were to devise a list of criteria to determine which football codes (AFL, Soccer, Rugby League and Rugby Union)
receive water allocations in the CoGG, what factors would you consider should be part of these criteria? How would you
measure them? Use Appendix B and Table 2 to assist in developing your answer.
3. Take on the role of Alice and create her communications strategy: what will she distribute to the sports that will and will
not receive water allocations as you have decided in Q 2 above, to the Council, and to the general public? Provide an
example of the communications.

3.2. Stakeholder management questions

1. How can all of the stakeholders ensure that the sportsground surfaces can be utilised in the best possible way(s)? What is
required from the stakeholders to make this work?
2. Draw a table with columns such as the ones provided in the example in Table 1.
a. Given your analysis in the table that you have developed, which compares and contrasts the position of each of the
stakeholders, what should the AFL (the largest sport stakeholder) do to get the resources they need?
b. Given your analysis developed from the information in your table, which compares and contrasts the position of each of
the stakeholders, what should sports such as Rugby League and Rugby Union (the smallest sport stakeholders) do to get
the resources they need?
c. Given your analysis in question 2a, describe a model of ‘best-practice’ in stakeholder management which allows all of
the sports to co-exist.

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

Water management in sport

Case study

1. Water management in sport

Alice is a Sport Club Liaison and Development Officer who works for the local Council in the City of Greater Geelong
(CoGG). Geelong is a large regional city in the state of Victoria, Australia. Alice has been given an important task that she
needs to prepare for. Due to an extreme period of drought in the CoGG, turf-based sport fields are being rationalised by the
Council. As a result the Council stipulated that water will now be provided to only 16 out of the 120 the turf-based sport fields
in the CoGG. Alice is the key liaison between sport clubs and teams in the CoGG and the local Council that provides the
facilities that they use. She is preparing to chair a meeting between local sport clubs and the Council. The case follows her
preparation for the upcoming meeting.
The key issue that has emerged is a result of long-term drought in the CoGG. The Council has taken action to allocate water
to only a few sport facilities throughout the city, and to restrict the access that sport clubs and teams have to all facilities for
both competition and training purposes. The sport clubs and teams feel threatened because if they cannot get access to
facilities to train or to run their competitions, their existence will be left in the hands of the local Council and its water
allocation strategy. Sports come to the meeting to battle for one of three different possible outcomes: (1) all sports will
attempt firstly to secure their current home facility as one of the 16 grounds allocated water; (2) if that fails, their fall-back
position will be to ensure that they have access to one of the 16 grounds allocated water dedicated specifically for their sport;
(3) if that fails, their last resort is to ensure that they get access to a ground for competition purposes even if it is to be shared
with other sports.
Alice will chair the meeting where both sides (local Council and sport) are expected to vehemently defend their rights to use
water. As a sport development officer, Alice had not perceived that she would need to understand issues of water management
in her role. Accordingly, she recognised that she needed to find out more information about water management in general, as
well as about water management in sport before she could clearly articulate the issue for the CoGG and therefore be a
knowledgeable meeting chair, and in essence a ‘‘referee’’ for the upcoming meeting. She prepared a discussion paper for the
Council on the issue and excerpts from her paper, plus any additional information included as appendices, are included below.

1.1. Background about water management globally

Globally, almost every nation is facing some form of water crisis (World Commission on Water, 2000). Water is becoming
an increasingly scarce resource, and effective and efficient management of it is complex due to increasing population,
increasing pollution, poor governance, and inefficient investment in infrastructure (van de Meene, Brown, & Farrelly, 2010;
Varis, Biswas, Tortajada, & Lundqvist, 2006). In many countries high water consuming industries (such as horticulture, dairy
and farming) have already undergone water consumption audits (Vardon, Lenzen, Peevor, & Creaser, 2007). Such audits
serve to map industry stakeholders (such as water providers, government authorities, land owners, end-customers), their
specific water consumption needs, and their respective interests in the industry. Consequently, water must be provided
ethically, equitably, and in a manner that is sustainable. In 2000, the World Commission on Water (2000) noted that such
management was not being achieved, and that a more ethical and socially responsible approach to sustainable water
management is the responsibility of all sectors of society. In 2013, at the launch of the ‘‘World Water Scenarios’’ which
examines sustainable water management globally (World Water Council, 2013), the CEO of one of the major partners in the
initiative observed that water management continues to be viewed as a special Sectoral issue rather than one that is
managed by collaborating stakeholders (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2013).
An understanding of stakeholder needs and values drives the determination of appropriate water allocation and
distribution priorities. As a result of such stakeholder mapping, many industries have undergone sector-wide managerial
and governance reform in order to achieve sustainable water management across economic, social and environmental (triple
bottom line) parameters (Basu, 2000; National Water Commission, 2013; Tortajada, 2006a, 2006b; Vardon et al., 2007). The
management of water in Australia has been highly regulated, characterised by management by hierarchy, regulations, rules
and market forces. This governance reform was designed to ensure that all stakeholder needs are recognised, and water
distribution and allocation is prioritised via a legislative body independent of the stakeholders themselves. This means that
water management is increasingly a social context requiring negotiation between a range of stakeholders with different
needs. That is, each stakeholder who needs water is its own social institution, with different views about how water is
managed and required for their existence. Godfrey (2009) suggests that, as high-profile social institutions, the way in which
sport organisations and governing bodies self-regulate sends important messages to other social institutions.
It is increasingly recognised by all levels of government authorities that sport participation can require groups of people
to gather at facilities, and as such sport be used as a tool to engage people and develop sense of community (Vail, 2007). In
this way, sport facilities, many of which rely on the provision of water, are inextricably linked with communities. Facilities

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
8 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Field of Play

Maintenance/Cleaning Consumer Amenies

Fig. 1. Segmenting water consumption in sport from Kellett and Turner (2011).

and the utilities that sustain them (such as water) then become an increasingly important consideration in any discussion of
sustainable management at the community level.

1.2. Sport and water management

Sport is considered to be an important part of the social fabric of Australian communities (Shilbury & Kellett, 2011). In
order to cater for participation in sport, facilities are required. In Australian society, sport and recreation has been developed
on a ‘club’ based system where the sport teams (or clubs) rely on facilities that, in turn, have become central hubs to
communities throughout the nation (see Shilbury & Kellett, 2011, for further discussion).
Kellett and Turner (2011) completed a study that identifies the range of ways in which sport and recreation facilities
consume water. They developed a model that begins to recognise the different ways that sports can and do use water (see
Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 identifies that some sports consume water mainly for the field of play (as depicted in the top circle). Examples of
sports that might fit into this category are those that are dependent on turf fields, (such as soccer, cricket or football, and that
do not have amenities areas that would also rely on the use of water. These might include smaller rural or regional facilities.
Some sports consume water mainly for consumer amenities (depicted in the right circle). Examples of such sports are tennis
played on hardcourt surfaces. These sports do not require water for their playing surface, but do use water in their concession
or amenities areas. Other sports consume water mainly for maintenance and cleaning of equipment (as depicted in the left
circle) and include sports such as boating and jetskiing. Of course, many sports consume water across more than one of these
categories. Facilities that use water in each of the categories might include larger turf-based sports where water is used for
the field of play, for clubhouse amenities, and for maintenance and cleaning purposes. An obvious example of this is
swimming facilities which use water in each of these categories.
Kellett and Turner (2011) note that a simple categorisation of water consumption in the sport and recreation industry
such as the one depicted in Fig. 1 allows an understanding of the different purposes for consumption. They also suggest that it
can provide a framework by which to better understand socially responsible water use in different types of facilities, and
therefore different sports and sport organisations.
In the Australian setting, most sport and recreation facilities are owned and/or maintained by local councils, as is the case
in the CoGG. Nearly 50% of government funding for sport in Australia comes from local councils; where the majority of sport
infrastructure (facilities including playing fields and amenities) has been developed for sport organisations to use. In general,
sport organisations at the community level lease facilities from their local councils and manage them on a day-to-day basis
by volunteers (Shilbury & Kellett, 2011). Volunteers take care of the day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of playing fields
and amenities for their club’s use and readiness for weekly training and competition. However, the facilities are generally
maintained on a long term basis (such as seasonal fertilisation, compliance with safety, etc.) by local councils who own them
(Kellett & Turner, 2011).
In general in the Australian sport setting local councils, as landlords, provide the sport facilities that they own with water,
that they buy from water management companies (Kellett & Turner, 2011). There are two basic models used by local councils

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

to manage water in the sport sector. Some local councils require that the tenants of their sport and recreation facilities pay
for the use of the facility (such as the field and amenities) through a lease arrangement, which may or may not fully cover the
costs of water consumption and associated maintenance and utility costs. Other local councils require that their tenants hire
the facility and pay for the consumption of water like any other utility bill, and such facilities have water metres installed to
enable the sport organisation to do so. In the CoGG, a mix of the two models is employed.
For sports that are heavy users of water for the maintenance of playing fields (such as cricket, soccer, Australian Rules
football, rugby league, rugby union, golf, grass and clay tennis courts, to name a few), the impacts of drought and water
restrictions around Australia have been severe. Some sports have reported an increase in the risk of injury to participants
because of the condition of un-watered playing fields (Sport & Recreation Victoria, 2007). Others have been forced to delay or
shorten their seasons (Sleeman, 2007) or, worse still, cancel training and organised competition completely (Connolly & Bell,
2007). As sport is considered to be a vital part of Australian communities, the impact on economic and social health of
residents as a result of the loss of sports due to water management restrictions has also been raised (VicSport, 2007a, 2007b).
The current water crisis has caused many local councils to examine their water use, particularly for the sport and
recreation sector in their communities. With regard to water usage, in their independent report the Sport and Recreation
Victorian Taskforce (2001) noted that:

 a large number of sport organisations are significant users of water, particularly outdoor sports played on grass surface;
 where facilities are managed by user groups, sports have had a relatively poor history of managing their water use;
 only 2–5 per cent of sporting facilities are utilising water re-use plans;
 water usage issues and associated costs are considered more significant in rural Victoria than in the metropolitan area.

The CoGG is one region faced with a major challenge in its management of water in its sport facilities. Most of its turf-
based sports were forced to delay or shorten their seasons due to the inability to access safe playing fields (Sleeman, 2007).
The following section outlines the water crisis in the CoGG.

2. A case study of water management in the CoGG: the council and the sports

2.1. Sport in the CoGG

The CoGG is approximately 75 km south west of Melbourne, the capital of Victoria. The CoGG spans an area of 1245 square
kilometres, and recorded a population of 216,330 in 2009 (City of Greater Geelong, 2009). The CoGG has a vibrant and active
sport and recreation community. At the elite level of sport, the CoGG is home to the Geelong Football Club (the Cats)
professional Australian Football League (AFL) team, and host to a range of local, national, and international events such as the
biennial International Air Show in 2013, the World Road Cycling Championships in 2010, and the Australian Masters Games
in 2009 and 2013.
The CoGG also boasts a range of opportunities for residents to participate. The CoGG has a large network of sport facilities,
most of which are owned by the local Council. In 2011, the Council completed a $31 million project to develop a community
recreation and leisure centre that included a 50-metre pool, learn to swim pool, warm water exercise pool, toddlers’ pool,
spa, sauna, gym, group exercise rooms, café, crèche, water park, and health club facilities. In addition to this, the Council
owns and maintains over 120 turf-based sporting fields (including the stadium used by its professional football team, the
Cats), six swimming pools, and three golf courses. From 2000 to 2010, the CoGG suffered from below average rainfall, and as a
result, all of the Council-owned sport and recreation facilities and the sport organisations which leased them (along with all
community members and business sectors) were required to adhere to severe water restrictions.

2.2. The Council and Water Management Corporation response to drought

In the CoGG, the 10 highest users of water are sport and recreation facilities, which between them consume almost one-
third of the CoGG’s total potable water (City of Greater Geelong, 2006, p. 6). This statistic alone has required that the Council
devise a plan to rationalise water use throughout the sport and recreation sector in the CoGG.
The CoGG is supplied with water through a water management company—the Water Management Corporation, which is
responsible for providing water and sewerage services for the CoGG. Prior to 2007, the Council and the Water Management
Corporation imposed an ever-increasing series of water restrictions on its residents and community level participation-
focused sport facilities in an effort to conserve and restrict water use. As the drought intensified in the years leading up to
2007, the restrictions were tightened every year, ensuring that households were not able to use water for outdoor purposes,
and sport fields were provided with minimal allocations to water their fields and supply their amenities. A ‘‘Frequently Asked
Questions’’ information brochure was distributed by the Council to alert CoGG residents and sport organisations about water
restrictions at that time, and alternative water sources (See Appendix A).
The strategy used prior to 2007 was to place all community level participation-focused sport and recreation facilities
under the water restriction regimes in place for the CoGG. In this way, all sport and recreation facilities were able to use some
water - but only minimal and closely monitored amounts. The Council realised that the water restrictions meant that all of
their facilities were being provided with minimal amounts of water. While ensuring that participation was continuing in

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

10 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

every facility, it was clear that this was unsustainable for the ongoing maintenance and safety of these facilities.
Unfortunately, the minimal amounts of water provided for each facility was not enough to sustain healthy grass growth for
the amount of traffic on the fields and the restrictions provided limitations for sanitation required in pool facilities, as well as
other consumer amenities at sport and recreation facilities. As a result, the Council observed increasing degradation of their
facility infrastructure. While all of the playing fields were receiving a small allocation of water, and continuing to harbour a
large level of participant traffic, this meant that these fields were often becoming dangerous for participants, and no longer
being able to sustain competition. What were once described as city assets for the Council were losing their value and, in fact,
becoming liabilities.
As a result of the continuing drought and inability for the water restriction strategy to maintain the fields, the Council and
Water Management Corporation were forced to develop an alternate strategy at the end of 2007. They proposed to enforce a
water allocation strategy for the sport and recreation sector rather than continue with the strategy of water restrictions.
(Note: this is at the heart of the current situation between the Council and sport clubs.)
The Council and Water Management Corporation agreed to allocate a certain amount of water to the participation-
focused sport and recreation sector in the CoGG. It must be noted that the professional sport facility (the home of the
professional football team—the Geelong Cats) was exempt from water restrictions and allocations. The allocation model was
proposed to allow the Council to make decisions about which community level participation-focused sport and recreation
facilities would receive water and which ones would not. The final decision was to allocate water to a limited number of
facilities.
The decision made by the Council and the Water Management Corporation was to ensure that a reduced number of its
turf-based playing fields would remain open to sports. Over the course of time, the number of fields available had been
reduced steadily from 120 fields to only 40. Due to the continuing severe drought conditions, this number is to be reduced to
only sixteen. These sixteen of the original 120 turf-based playing fields in the CoGG are to remain open for staging sport
competitions only. This means that no practice or training for any sport was to be allowed on the sixteen selected watered
playing surfaces; their use was to be restricted to competition play only. All available water to sport and recreation in the
CoGG was to be directed only to these fields in order to keep them safe, playable, and to halt the degradation. The remaining
104 Council-owned sport and recreation facilities were to be closed to the public for all participation (training and
competition), and not provided with any water allocation at all.
The water allocation system adopted by the Council and the Water Management Corporation signals a new method of
governance. No longer is the decision about sport delivery purely in the hands of local sport organisations or their governing
bodies. The sport and recreation facility closures enforced by the Council is predicted to lead to some difficulties for some
sport organisations, and hence the requirement for a meeting for all of the stakeholders to discuss.

2.3. Implementing the Council’s water allocation strategy

The Council and the Water Management Corporation had already made some progress related to how they considered
that the water allocation strategy could be implemented, and had developed a range of checklists and tools for monitoring
sport grounds. The Council had delegated this task to the Department of Sport and Recreation and, specifically, a team
leader (Manny) in Parks, Planning, and Recreation was going to be responsible for the implementation of the strategy—
called the Water Allocation Plan. The Water Allocation Plan was a guide to assist in deciding what access sports would have
to the Council facilities in the CoGG. Manny had developed a tool to assist the process of auditing sport grounds for safety
and condition (see Appendix B). His aim was to provide a transparent and objective measure to create clarity for all
stakeholders regarding ground closure and access. He shared these with Alice who also compiled them in her report to
Council.
Ground inspection process. Manny and/or his team inspect every field throughout the CoGG each Monday. Manny’s
greatest fear (and motivation for developing the documentation around the inspection process) is that teams would try to
gain favours and create political lobbying if it were not made as objective as possible. If one of the sixteen sport fields fails
inspection and faces closure for the following weekend, a process is in place to liaise with all of the stakeholders involved
about the potential impacts for the sport, the competition, and the Council. Closing a sport field for public use is a decision
that Council does not take lightly.

2.4. Implications for sport

All sports in the CoGG are suffering as a result of 10 years of drought in the area. In particular, it is the turf-based sports
which rely on water for field maintenance, who are impacted the most in the CoGG. In the CoGG, the Council has provided
sport organisations with a safety rating scale to ensure they are aware of how their facility is evaluated for safe ongoing use.
The safety rating scale is enforced by Manny and his team (see Table 2). Sport organisations in the CoGG have been reluctant
to accept the rating scale, and have been vocal about its perceived relevance.
In order to ensure that they have safe facilities, the Council and the sport organisations have used a variety of means to
mitigate the impact of drought on their playing fields include carting water in, planting alternate grass types, and making
decisions on the types of sport that can be played on different surfaces. In the CoGG, there has been a substantial amount of
research completed on the use of water in sport as outlined in Appendix A.

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 11

Table 2
Factors for water allocation to sport grounds.

Factor Explanation Total score

Ground type Well-constructed drainage system; as well as grass types that were drought tolerant, 1–10
Existing water saving strategies Installed water saving initiatives that might include water storage tanks; use of recycled 1–10
water
Location Even geographical spread of facilities throughout the region 1–10
Sport Type Facility usage is balanced between different sport types based on the wear and tear they 1–10
inflict on the playing surface
Community Impact Sports who use the facility have large participation numbers; and participation across age, 1–10
standard, and gender.
Multi-purpose use Ground and amenities can be used by multiple sport groups 1–10
Safety Facilities must have a detailed maintenance plan to ensure safety of the playing surface and 1–10
amenities.
Total scorea
a
A total score of less than 54 indicates that the ground is not suitable for play and should be further inspected and closed until considered safe (see exhibit
2). A total score of greater than 54 indicates that the ground is suitable for play (see exhibit 2).

Table 3
Sport organisation profiles.

Rugby league Rugby union Soccer AFL

Number of clubs
Number regions with
at least one club
Women’s Participation
Programmes Represented
in Clubs
1 2 17 48
1 1 9 20
0% <1% 20% 15%
Senior Junior Competition Junior Development Junior Development Programme
Competition Senior Competition Programme
Junior Competition Junior Competition
Amateur Senior Competition Amateur Senior Competition
Semi-Professional Senior Competition Semi-Professional
Senior Competition
Women’s Competition Women’s Competition
Professional Team

On the basis of the figures presented in Appendix A, it is apparent that the Water Company has made available a total of
250 Gl of water for the sport and recreation sector for the season. As the Council and Water Management Corporation cannot
sustain the level of water required for all turf-based sport fields, the Council and the Water Management Corporation
decided that a programme of water rationalisation was required. The water allocation model was derived by the Council and
the Water Management Corporation, about which the sport sector was outraged. They were not consulted to assist in the
process of determining the factors that would be taken into consideration for water allocation, and were even more
concerned that there was no sport management expertise on the taskforce that came up with the factors.
As such, sports that are impacted the most in the CoGG (AFL football, soccer, Rugby League and Rugby Union) have been
invited to meet with the Council and Water Management Corporation to discuss strategies for their futures under the water
allocation model in the CoGG. A profile of each of the sports that have been invited to the meeting is included in Table 3.
For the sport of Rugby Union there are two clubs in the municipality. Rugby Union is a small sport in the CoGG (when
compared to other turf-based football codes in the area) as it has two clubs which are located in the main central business
area of the CoGG. Rugby Union is traditionally a male sport, but in the CoGG it has made small inroads to include female
participation albeit in low numbers at present. Further, in its recent targeted programming efforts, Rugby Union has not
only increased its female participants, but has also developed a viable junior competition of four teams to supplement its
senior competition that has been established for over 10 years. Rugby League has only one club in the CoGG and plays all of
its ‘‘away’’ games in the larger metropolitan city of Melbourne. It has no junior or female participation in the sport in the
CoGG.
Soccer in the CoGG has increased its participation base by 5% each year over the last 10 years. The number of women
playing soccer in the CoGG has increased significantly each year during this period and currently over 300 girls and women
play the sport (up from 40 players ten years ago). The CoGG has improved participation for women beyond state averages.
Soccer competition in the CoGG is healthy in that the sport clubs provide development programming for juniors (male and
female), competitions for all age groups, as well as a senior men’s semi-professional league.
The CoGG has a particularly strong tradition of AFL football. It is home to the Geelong Football Club (the Cats) professional
AFL team. The CoGG boasts a healthy football culture with almost 50 clubs in the region, catering for programmes across
junior, senior, amateur, semi-professional, and women’s leagues. In particular there are eight large clubs that are part of the
semi-professional league in the CoGG.
Regardless of what happens at the meeting, clubs, teams and associations will be in a situation where they are forced to
compromise and share facilities. In order to ensure the safety of the playing surfaces, the Council and the Water Management

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

12 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Company have restricted use of the sixteen fields which are allocated water to competition only. This means that all of the
sport clubs and teams will be forced to arrange for their training sessions to be conducted at other locations in the
municipality. The CoGG have produced a list of alternate locations that includes local beaches, local parks and gardens, and
other public open areas throughout the CoGG. Alice wondered whether the Council had thought about transference of issues
of safety, public liability, and more importantly degradation of city assets to these other public spaces and facilities within
the community.
Further, sharing of the scheduling of club competition seasons and individual matches will have an impact on the
financial status and viability of clubs and leagues. In the local sport club system, having a match at one’s ‘‘home ground’’
means that revenue generated from ticket sales (gate receipts) and sale of concessions generally belongs to the ‘‘home’’ team.
Many of these issues had not even been considered in the water allocation strategy. What would constitute a fair and
equitable process of dividing profits?
Perhaps more importantly, some sport organisations will have missed out completely on any allocation of water, and may
not be assigned to a facility that is able to use water, thereby having an impact on their ability to stage their entire
competitions. In this way, these sports may either cease to exist in the CoGG, or will be significantly compromised in their
ability to continue.

Appendix A. Frequently asked questions

What do water restrictions mean to turf sport grounds?

Watering of sporting grounds is banned. No mains potable (i.e. drinkable) water is to be applied to sporting grounds including
turf playing surfaces. Fines apply for using water inappropriately.
What are the alternatives to potable water?

 Class A or B water from outside the Geelong catchment;

 Bore water—problematic due to high salt content in the water;
 Dam and channel water if available;
 Recycled ‘‘C’’ class from alternative Treatment Facilities—has a relatively high salt content;
 Re-Use water (e.g. pool backwash water, sewer, storm water mining);
 Tanking-in water—costs are approximately $1400 per 90,000 l delivered. The weight of the water alone on a fully laden
10,000 l tanker is 10 tonnes which causes surface compaction and damage to irrigation and drainage infrastructure;
 Rain water tanks—worthwhile for specific ground areas, toilet flushing etc., but quantities not sufficient for the watering of
an entire ground.

How much water is required to maintain a grass surface over summer months?

 A standard cricket/football oval requires approximately 3 applications per week (270,000–300,000 l per week) to keep the
oval in a healthy and safe condition.
 A standard soccer pitch requires approximately 3 applications per week (150,000 l per week) to keep a pitch in a healthy
and safe condition.
 A bowling green requires 15,000–30,000 l of water per week to keep the turf alive.

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 13

Appendix B. Ground inspection criteria

Adapted from City of Greater Geelong (2012) Summer Sport Ground Inspections. Retrieved 25th February from http://
www.geelongaustralia.com.au/ct/documents/item/8cbd9c89836f92c.aspx

References

Anon. (2012). Dingley races cancelled due to drought Retrieved from http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/sport/other-sport/dingley-races-cancelled-due-to-drought-1-
2709606.
Anon. (2013). Denver parks shuts down sports fields through April 1 due to drought Retrieved from http://www. milehighmamas. com/2013/02/23/denver-parks-
shuts-down-sports-fields-through-april-1-due-to-drought/.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2012). Sports and Physical Recreation: A Statistical Overview Australia, 2012. (Cat. No. 4156. 0). Canberra: Author.
Basu, P. K. (2000). Study for the efficient planning, control and management of water resources development projects in India. International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 16(4), 563–570.
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2006). More than just a game? Corporate social responsibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(4), 214–222.
Bloomfield, J. (2003). Australia’s sporting success: The inside story. Sydney: University of NSW Press.
City of Greater Geelong. (2006). In Department of Sustainability, Environment and City of Greater Geelong (Ed.), Sustainable Water Use Plan City of Greater
Geelong.

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002
G Model
SMR-229; No. of Pages 14

14 P. Phillips, P. Turner / Sport Management Review xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Connolly, E., & Bell, A. (2007). Drought cancels footy season. Retrieved September 11th, 2013 from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/drought-
cancels-footy-season/story-e6freuzi-1111112937991.
Covell, D. (2004). Attachment, allegiance and a covergent application of stakeholder theory to Ivy League Athletics. International Sports Journal, 8(1), 14–26.
Covell, D. (2005). Attachment, allegiance and a covergent application of stakeholder theory: Assessing the impact of winning on athletic donation in the Ivy
League. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 168–176.
Dickson, G., Arnold, T., & Chalip, L. (2005). League expansion and interorganisational power. Sport Management Review, 8(2), 145–165.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24, 191–205.
Funk, D. C., Toohey, K., & Bruun, T. (2007). International sport event participation: Prior sport involvement; destination image; and travel motives. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 7(3), 227–248.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic
management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 1–23.
Godfrey, P. C. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport: An overview and key issues. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 698–716.
Green, B. C. (2005). Building sport programs to optimize athlete recruitment, retention, and transition: Toward a normative theory of sport development. Journal
of Sport Management, 19, 233–253.
Hayhurst, L. M. C, & Frisby, W. (2010). Inevitable tensions: Swiss and Canadian Sport for Development NGO perspectives on partnerships with high performance
sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(1), 75–96.
Heffernan, J., & O’Brien, D. (2010). Stakeholder influence strategies in bidding for a professional sport franchise license. Sport Management Review, 13, 255–268.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (2013). World water scenarios initiative launches at IIASA Retrieved from http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/
resources/mediacenter/PressReleases/Water-Scenarios.en.html.
Kellett, P., & Turner, P. (2011). CSR and water management in the sport sector: A research agenda. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 10(1/2),
142–160.
Kellison, T. B., & Mondello, M. J. (2012). Organisational perception management in sport: The use of corporate pro-environmental behaviour for desired facility
referenda outcomes. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 500–512.
Lewis, L. K. (2007). An organisational stakeholder model of change implementation communication. Communication Theory, 17, 176–204.
MacIntosh, E., & Spence, K. (2012). An exploration of stakeholder values: In search of common ground within an international sport and development initiative.
Sport Management Review, 15(4), 404–415.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academic Management Review, 22, 853–886.
National Water Commission. (2013). Australian water markets: trends and drivers 2007–2008 to 2011–2012 Retrieved August 30, 2013 from http://nwc gov.au/
home/publication/australian-water-markets-trends-and-drivers-2007–08 to 2011–12.
Nelson, R., Howden, M., & Stafford Smith, M. (2008). Using adaptive governance to rethink the way science supports Australian drought policy. Environmental
Science & Policy, 11(7), 588–601.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competencies of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79–91.
Shilbury, D. (2012). Competition: The heart and soul of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 1–10.
Shilbury, D., & Kellett, P. (2011). Sport Management in Australia: An Overview. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Sotiriadou, K., Shilbury, D., & Quick, S. (2008). Attraction, retention/transition, and nurturing process of sport development: Some Australian Evidence. Journal of
Sport Management, 22, 247–272.
Spector, S., Chard, C., Mallen, C., & Hyatt, C. (2012). Socially constructed environmental issues and sport: A content analysis of ski resort environmental
communications. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 416–433.
Sleeman, E. (2007). Stonnington Winter Sports Season Delayed to Saturday 28 April Retrieved from http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/
3_Apr_2007_Stonnington_Winter_Sports_Season_Delayed_to_Sat_28_April.pdf.
Sport and Recreation Victoria. (2007). Ground Conditions and Injury Risk – Implications for Sports Grounds Assessment Practices in Victoria. Melbourne: Sport and
Recreation Victoria.
Sport and Recreation Victorian Taskforce. (2001). Cost of Delivering Sport: Report of the Independent Taskforce. Sport and Recreation Victoria Retrieved from http://
fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2001/vic/CostSportTaskforceReport.pdf.
Tortajada, C. (2006a). Water management in Mexico City Metropolitan area. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(2), 353–376.
Tortajada, C. (2006b). Water management in Singapore. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(2), 227–240.
Turner, P. (2012). Regulation of professional sport in a changing broadcasting environment: Australian club and sport broadcaster perspectives. Sport Management
Review, 15, 43–59.
Vail, S. (2007). Community development and sport participation. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 571–596.
van de Meene, S. J., Brown, R. R., & Farrelly, M. A. (2010). Capacity attributes of future urban water management regimes: Projections from Australian sustainability
practitioners. Water Science & Technology, 61(9), 2241–2250.
Vardon, M., Lenzen, M., Peevor, S., & Creaser, M. (2007). Water accounting in Australia. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 650–659.
Varis, O., Biswas, A. K., Tortajada, C., & Lundqvist, J. (2006). Megacities and water management. Water Resources Development, 22(2), 377–394.
Vicsport. (2007, March). Time to think long term to find drought proofing solutions. SportsView, 5.
VicSport. (2007, March). Water restrictions and drought cut deep into the fabric of our communities. SportsView, 4.
Welty-Peachey, J., & Bruening, J. (2011). An examination of environmental forces driving change and stakeholder responses in a Football Championship
Subdivision athletic department. Sport Management Review, 14(2), 202–219.
Westerbeek, H., Smith, A., Turner, P., Emery, P., Green, C., & Van Leeuwen, L. (2005). Managing Sport Facilities and Major Events. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
World Commission on Water. (2000). Report of the World Commission on Water. Water Resources Development, 16(3), 289–320.
World Water Council. (2013). Water Scenarios for the future Retrieved from http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/news/news-single/article/wwc-president-at-
launch-of-world-water-scenarios-initative/.

Please cite this article in press as: Phillips, P., Turner, P., Water management in sport. Sport Management Review (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.08.002