Climate impacts in sport: extreme heat as a climate hazard and adaptation options

ABSTRACT

Rationale

The aim of this paper is to present research examining how the climate hazard of extreme heat impacts varsity-level sport athletes and facilities, current responses, and options for adaptation.

Methods

A sample of 30 participants from a higher education institution athletics department was used with a two-phase Delphi study method that applied two iterations of questionnaires and mixed method analysis. The institution was situated in a region with a Köppen classification of “Warm Summer Continental Climate”.

Findings

Heat hazards aligned primarily with slow-onset, rather than fast-onset, climate impact categories. Adapting to heat hazards aligned with incremental adaptation rather than transformative adaptation. These findings suggest climate adaptation is a new concept for university sport and so is at a pioneering stage of practice.

Practical implications

Identifies options for sport managers for integrating adaptation into the strategic and operational thinking of sport organizations.

Research contribution

This paper extends knowledge by presenting evidence of heat risks to the sport as perceived by sport managers and participants during an era of climate change. The results address gaps in the existing literature by using primary source data to add to the evidence base for sport and climate change, and by identifying options for climate adaptation.

KEYWORDS:

• Adaptation
• climate change
• heat
• impacts
• sport

Introduction

Sport in an era of climate change – a change in long-term weather patterns over decades or longer (IPCC, 2018) – is vulnerable to climate hazards. Climate hazards (IPCC, 2018), such as rising temperatures and extreme rainfall, are acknowledged as complex challenges. Societies are “increasingly being impacted by rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and frequent or severe extreme weather events” (Fedele et al., 2019, p. 116).

The climate hazard of extreme heat is the focus of this paper. Extreme heat is a “global systemic risk” (Glasser, 2020, p. 152) and reflects multi-decadal temperature increases on a global scale. Extreme heat impacts a variety of industries, such as construction, manufacturing, and automobile manufacturing (Heal & Park, 2016), with associated heat stress a common problem for workers. Impacts on humans include “reductions in worker productivity” (p. 352), and “labor supply” (p. 352), and impaired cognitive and physical productivity (Heal & Park, 2016).

Efforts to manage extreme heat risks as reflected in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) endorsed by the United Nations lack meaningful progress. Continued inadequate progress in addressing climate hazards such as heat exemplify what has been described as the “ultimate betrayal of intergenerational equity and imposes costs on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentives to fix” (Carney, 2021, p. 7).

A critical challenge for sport managers, therefore, is to learn to adapt to climatic hazards. While adaptation to climate change has grown rapidly in management literature over the last two decades (Keenan, 2015; Owen, 2020), and is gaining in value (Carney, 2021), adaptive capacity has not been operationalized and measured (Guardaro et al., 2022). Adaptation remains a contested topic, arguably because adaptation hinges on “multiple and intersecting ways in which people know, experience, and deal with” climatic extremes (Owen, 2020, p. 2). Despite the contested nature of adaptation, it has been argued that adaptation needs to be transformational at all levels of society (Glasser, 2020). A transition to adaptive thinking is, thus, needed.

Existing adaptation to climate change, however, is limited. Berrang-Ford et al.’s (2021) literature review of 48,000 articles noted that “documented adaptations were largely fragmented, local and incremental, with limited evidence of transformational adaptation of risk reduction outcomes” (p. 989). Priorities for global adaptation research include Assess[ing] the effectiveness of adaptation responses, … limits of adaptation, … improv[ing] methods for synthesizing different forms of evidence, … and improv[ing] the inclusion timescale and dynamics of responses (p. 989). These priorities indicate that much work needs to be completed to fill knowledge gaps concerning adaptation to climatic hazards (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Glasser, 2020).

Complicating the climate change challenge is uncertainty. Future increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases – a key driver of climate change – and what effects these might have on the climate system are uncertain (Keenan, 2015). Climate change adaptation occurs in the face of uncertainty (Linnenluecke, 2022) with climate modeling unable to accurately simulate climate impacts at the local scale (Shepherd et al., 2018). Generating adaptation options (Carney, 2021) for climatic vulnerabilities to determine effective responses to climate challenges (Castle et al., 2015) are, thus, industry- and location-specific.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how sport managers are addressing heat-related issues for athletes and facilities. The perceptions of athletes, coaches, and managers of how extreme heat impacts varsity-level sport are presented and accompanied by a discussion on organizational adaptations and future options. The following research questions (RQ) guided this investigation:

RQ1: What are the perceived impacts of heat hazards on the sport program?

RQ2: What, if any, adaptation options have been – or could be – implemented?

Data were collected from a university athletics department in Ontario, Canada. A two-phase Delphi study technique was utilized. Organizational responses to heat hazards at the program level were examined on (1) varsity athletes, and (2) outdoor sports fields, and then situated within existing climate adaptation research literature. Responses to adaptation options were also examined. The next section of this paper examines the existing literature as it relates to climate impacts on sport and heat hazards specifically.

Climate impacts on sport and responses to heat hazards

Atmospheric climate impacts on sport are evident in the research literature. Three areas of climate impacts are identified in a systematic review of research literature encompassing climate change impacts on organized sport: (1) heat impacts on athlete and spectator health; (2) heat impacts on athlete performance; and (3) impacts on the suitability of cities for hosting an event (Orr et al., 2022). Other studies (e.g. Dingle et al., 2022; Orr & Schneider, 2018) have identified the secondary climate impacts at the organizational level in the form of higher costs, an issue consistent with the non-sport management literature (e.g. Tsalis & Nikolaou, 2017). Three domains of climate impacts on sport are evident: (1) sport participants (athletes, spectators and officials); (2) sport infrastructure and facilities; and (3) sport organizations. Studies exemplifying impacts across these domains are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Domains of climate impacts for sport reported in the research literature.

Domains of climate impacts	Exemplifying research literature
Climate impacts on sport participants	Bernard et al., 2021; Dingle & Mallen, 2021; Kellison & Orr, 2020; Orr et al., 2022; Ross & Orr, 2022; Sofotasiou et al., 2015; Vanos et al., 2019
Climate impacts on sport infrastructure and facilities	Dingle et al., 2022; Dingle & Mallen, 2021; Dingle & Stewart, 2018; Orr et al., 2022; Ross & Orr, 2022
Climate impacts on sport organizations	Dingle et al., 2022; Dingle & Mallen, 2021; Dingle & Stewart, 2018; Mallen & Dingle, 2021, september; Orr, 2020; Orr & Inoue, 2018

Research studies on climate impacts on sport reflect a range of climate hazards and timescales for onset. Climate hazards are described as physical events causing loss of life, health, property, infrastructure or livelihoods (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018). Climate hazards include storms, extreme rainfall and flooding, sea-level rise, rising temperatures, drought, and bushfires (IPCC, 2018). Such hazards have been categorized as sudden-onset and gradual-onset (Glasser, 2020). Sudden-onset hazards (e.g. storms, forest fires) can cause sudden-onset impacts for organizations, including sport organizations (e.g. extreme rainfall causing flooding at sport facilities). An example is the flooding of the Chichibunomiya Rugby Stadium during the 2019 Japan Rugby World Cup as a result of Typhoon Hagibis (Reuters, 2019). Alternatively, gradual-onset hazards (e.g. rising temperatures, drought) can enable gradual-onset impacts for organizations, including sport organizations (e.g. droughts contributing to the compaction of turf for sports fields). An example is the compaction of Australian football fields during the 1996–2010 Millennium Drought (Dingle & Mallen, 2021).

Cascading climate change impacts (Lawrence et al., 2020; Schäfer et al., 2021), those which “‘cascade’ across and between multiple domains” (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020, p. 2), pose particular challenges for sport. For example, sudden-onset storms can cause flooding of sport facilities whose initial impact is disrupted sport competitions, and whose cascaded impact can include loss of revenue for sport organizations. Equally, heat hazards can be disruptive to sport participants, facility management, and organizations (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cascading heat impacts on sport.

Heat hazards are significant for their impacts on sport participants, sport facilities and infrastructure, and sport organizations. Adverse health effects through exposure to elevated temperatures are well known for sport participants (Abraham, 2019). Among sport physiology literature, impacts of Exertional Heat Illnesses (EHI) on sport participants are recurring themes with different levels of severity reported including heat stress (Smith et al., 2018), heat illness (Finch & Boufous, 2008), and exertional heat stroke (Gamage et al., 2020). Recent studies illustrate the significance of heat in hazards in sport. For example, exertional heat stroke is listed as the third highest cause of death among athletes during physical activity (Bouchama et al., 2022), while EHI deaths in organized sports have increased over the last three decades (Gamage et al., 2020). Underestimation of athlete mortality from exertional heat stroke (Bouchama et al., 2022) and underreporting of sport heat-related health problems (Chalmers & Jay, 2018) compound the heat problem.

Heat impacts are observed in a range of sports, including association football (soccer) (Grundstein et al., 2020), baseball (Orr, 2020), tennis (Smith et al., 2018), and golf (Scott & Jones, 2006). EHI-related hospitalization for sport participants is evident (Finch & Boufous, 2008; Gilchrist et al., 2011), and impaired decision-making by football referees is reported (Gaoua et al., 2017). Extreme heat has been found to contribute to higher injury risks and competition interruptions (Dingle & Mallen, 2021), and reduction of the thermal comfort of spectators (Sofotasiou et al., 2015). Heat impacts at major events are also evaluated in studies for the 2022 FIFA World Cup held in Qatar (Matzarakis & Fröhlich, 2015; Sofotasiou et al., 2015), and the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games (Honjol et al., 2018; Vanos et al., 2019). Climate heat impacts are, therefore, an issue for sport managers.

In the domain of sport facilities and infrastructure, gradual-onset heat hazards impact grass-based playing fields (Dingle & Mallen, 2021; Mallen & Dingle, 2017). Synthetic sports turf with “high solar absorbency” (Abraham, 2019, p. 515) is impacted by extreme heat leading to playing surface temperatures as high as 86.4°C./188°F. (Thomas et al., 2014). For synthetic athletic tracks, high heat levels permeate the soles of athletes’ shoes (Penn State Center for Sport’s Surface Research, n.d.).

For sport organizations, heat hazards have been associated with public liability insurance risks due to the compaction of grass sports turf (Dingle & Mallen, 2021), plus higher operating costs due to increased levels of water evaporation and capital costs of installing water management infrastructure (Dingle & Mallen, 2021; Dingle & Stewart, 2018).

Responses to heat hazards in sport

Responses to heat hazards in sport are evident in the research literature. Adopting climate change response categories developed by Berrang-Ford et al. (2021), we categorize these responses to heat hazards in sport as behavioral and/or cultural; ecosystem-based; institutional, and; technological and/or infrastructure (see Table 2).

Table 2. Categories of responses to heat hazards evident in sport research.

Types of response	Responses and exemplifying research literature
Behavioral and/or cultural	• Extra hydration breaks (Chalmers et al., 2020; Nybo et al., 2021) • Modify match procedures to avoid extreme heat (Nybo et al., 2021) • Acclimatize players prior to football matches in hot conditions (Jay et al., 2021; Nybo et al., 2021) • Self-wetting skin or clothing (e.g. football) (Jay et al., 2021) • Ingestion of cold water/ice slurry (Chalmers et al., 2020; Jay et al., 2021) • Iced garments for athletes (e.g. towels) (Chalmers et al., 2020) • Electric fans (Chalmers et al., 2020) • Cold-water immersion to cool high core temperature (Chalmers et al., 2020)
Ecosystem-based	No responses were found in the sport research literature for this category
Institutional	• Planning for heat risks (Hosokawa et al., 2019) • Heat policies (Chalmers et al., 2020; Chalmers & Jay, 2018; Dingle & Mallen, 2021) • Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature was used to assess safety in hot and/or humid conditions (Chalmers et al., 2019; Chalmers & Jay, 2018) • Increase water availability for athletes in extreme heat (Mallen & Dingle, 2017; Orr & Inoue, 2018) • Reschedule sport event to cooler hours or months (Honjol et al., 2018; Matzarakis & Fröhlich, 2015; Nybo et al., 2021) • Re-route distance running events to use city wind corridors and avoid unshaded areas (Vanos et al., 2019) • Suspend play if the risk is deemed sufficiently high (Jay et al., 2021) • Brief in-play cooling breaks (Chalmers et al., 2019) • Choose playing surfaces that minimize heat retention (Jay et al., 2021)
Technological and/or infrastructure	• Electric fans (Vanos et al., 2019) • Permeable pavements as cooler running surfaces for Olympic Marathon (Vanos et al., 2019) • Move sport indoors (Orr & Inoue, 2018) • Build an artificial shade for distance running (Vanos et al., 2019) • Heat tolerance testing to identify heat vulnerability (Nybo et al., 2021)

Of heat hazard-specific responses identified in Table 2, most behavioral and/or cultural responses are actions for sport participants. In contrast, institutional, technological and/or infrastructure responses to heat hazards are initiated by organizations. In the next section, insights from adaptation literature are considered.

Adaptation of sport to climate impacts

Sport organizations that have developed strategic thinking around sport and climate are rare, yet signs of a shift in industry practice are emerging. For example, Fédération Internationale de Football Association’s (2021) climate strategy is perhaps the first where climate impacts and adaptation are explicitly integrated into the strategic thinking of an international sport governing body. This illustrates how sport practitioners are beginning to integrate climate adaptation into organizational strategy.

Despite the urgency of the adaptation challenge, empirical work on sport and climate adaptation is lacking. A database search was not able to identify any academic papers that provided options for sport organizations to adapt to climate impacts. This is surprising given Kay and Vamplew’s (2006) call for comprehensive sport plans to manage climatic events was made over a decade ago, and the significant advances made in recent years in the non-sport climate adaptation literature (e.g, Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Rickards, 2013).

While adaptation to climate impacts has been given increased attention in sport management literature in recent years, limited consideration has been given to types of adaptation. Insights into types of climate adaptation can be found in the non-sport adaptation literature where options, including those for heat hazards, have been contemplated for over a decade.

Types of adaptation (see Table 3) include incremental adaptation (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021) which is characterized by gradual, short-term, small-scale changes to existing practices or programs (e.g. updating a heat management policy). Additonally no-regret or low-regret adaptation (de Bruin et al., 2009) is characterized by changes worth implementing irrespective of climate change (e.g. introducing an air quality policy to mitigate risks from forest fire smoke). Furthermore, groundwork adaptation (Pearce et al., 2018) is characterized by preliminary steps toward adaptation without changing existing systems, programs, policies or services (e.g. heat risk assessments and scenario planning). Finally, transformative adaptation (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Rickards & Howden, 2012) is characterized by fundamental, long-term, strategic change (e.g. changing sport facility water and energy management systems simultaneously).

Table 3. Climate change adaptation options.

Adaptation options	Characteristics of adaptation options
Incremental adaptation	Small-scale change: • Gradual, short-term, parts of the system • Improve existing practices & programs but climate change is not integrated into strategic thinking e.g.: • Heat policy for clubs • Increase drink breaks for players • Replace natural turf with synthetic
No-regret adaptation	Benefits irrespective of climate change: • Cost-Benefit Analysis determines the scale of change e.g.: • Heat policy to mitigate heat risks • Air quality policy to mitigate forest fire smoke risks • Reschedule event to mitigate cost risks
Groundwork adaptation	Preliminary steps toward adaptation: * Discussions on the need for adaptations have begun e.g.: • No immediate changes to policies, systems, or programs • Scenario Planning & Economic Analysis of adaptation options
Transformative adaptation	A major change at all levels (local, regional & national): e.g.: • Strategic, fundamental, long-term • Multiple systems simultaneously (e.g. event systems, management systems) • Relocate venues away from the flood zone

Developing a robust body of research on adaptation options to heat hazards in sport grounded in primary source data remains a challenge for researchers. Despite calls for further research into climate adaptation in sport (Mallen & Dingle, 2021, september; Orr et al., 2022), little guidance is available about how heat hazards are perceived by managers of sport programs or facilities, how they respond, or options for adaptation. In the next section, we outline our methods of study.

Method

The aims of this study were to understand how the climate hazard of extreme heat impact varsity-level sport athletes and facilities, and to bring forward a discussion on current adaptations and future adaptation options. A single-case study design was applied (Miles et al., 2014). The units of analysis were the university athletics department program and sport facilities managed by the department. A two-phased Delphi technique was used.

Data collection using the Delphi study technique

The Delphi study technique is an accepted research method (Nielsen & Thangadurai, 2007; Sinha et al., 2011), previously utilized in sport management research (Costa, 2005; Mallen et al., 2010). It involves soliciting opinions with a structured communication method that encourages sharing viewpoints and exploring divergent points (Day & Bobeva, 2005; Nielsen & Thangadurai, 2007). It is valued for “the range of quality ideas it generates” (Nielsen & Thangadurai, 2007, p. 151).

Participants answered questions that were collected, collated, and returned to allow them to provide further feedback as “each round builds on the proceeding round” (Costa, 2005, p. 121). Data collection involved mixed methods and two rounds of questionnaires (Schmalz et al., 2021). Overall, the “iterative feedback method develops an insight, which in its totality, is more than the sum of the parts” (Day & Bobeva, 2005, p. 104).

Varsity sport and participants

Canada’s higher education varsity sport consists of 436 institutions including 223 universities and 213 public colleges/institutes (Council of Ministers of Education, 2022). Canada’s universities support approximately 1.4 million students (Council of Ministers of Education, 2022) with the province of Ontario home to 23 Universities (Ontario Universities, 2022). The university participating in this study is a typical example of a varsity sport in Canada.

Delphi studies involve anonymous participants (Costa, 2005; Day & Bobeva, 2005; Nielsen & Thangadurai, 2007) with experience relevant to the topic (Sinha et al., 2011). The anonymous participants for this study were athletes, coaches, and athletic department managers involved in varsity sport programs encompassing Canadian football, association football (soccer), rugby, field hockey, and athletics.

The Delphi technique requires a minimum of eight participants (Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010). Honesty and confidentiality increases “as the size of the expert panel increases to 30 or more, [so] it becomes more difficult to ascribe specific responses to any one participant” (Nielsen & Thangadurai, 2007, p. 160). This study had 30 participants in Iteration-1 and 20 participants in Iteration-2, with a dropout rate of 33%. No consensus in the research literature has been found on the dropout rate between iterations (Mullen, 2003). Day and Bobeva (2005) indicated a dropout rate as high as 40% or more per iteration is not unusual in Delphi studies.

Participants were secured with a stepped process adapted from Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) that included a worksheet and evaluation of potential candidates. The letter of consent and Questionnaire-1 was emailed to potential participants by the office of the Athletic Department affording those not interested in the study to keep their contact information confidential. Participants completed Questionnaire 1 and forwarded it to the researcher (only at this point did the researchers obtain contact information). Questionnaire 2 was forwarded to participants directly by the researchers. Participants were allocated alphanumeric identifiers (e.g. P-1, P-2), and name and contact information were deleted.

Framework for the questionnaires

Questionnaires were developed with Ogden and Innes (2009) framework that included statements on current conditions and the projected future. If participants indicated they had seen heat-related impacts, then examples of further questions in Iteration 1 included: I have seen extreme heat impact varsity sport athletes in the following way(s); I have seen extreme heat impact varsity sport game officials in the following way(s); I have seen extreme heat impact the grass-based sports fields in the following way(s); I have seen extreme heat impact the artificial turf in the following way(s); and On a scale from 1 (not a problem) to 10 (extreme impact), what do you foresee concerning the impacts of extreme heat on varsity sport in the next 5 years?

Additionally, Wilby and Dessai (2010) bottom-up framework guided questions on perspectives concerning “robust adaptation measures … to either mitigate or adapt to climate change” (p. 182). Based on this framework, participants then identified and evaluated options for mitigating climate impacts. To do this, questions asked participants to select adaptions that are happening from a list of options and they had the opportunity to list any additional adaptations they determined to be occurring. This meant that questionnaire Iteration 1 focused on climate impacts and mitigation options. Next, questions in Iteration 2 focused on perspectives concerning adaptation options. Examples included questions that asked participants to rank the adaptation options into priority order for safeguarding sport during times of extreme heat. Another focus in Iteration 2 continued to be framed with the work of Wilby and Dessai (2010) and asked participants about training needs concerning understanding adaption options, the key areas of focus of training (if needed), and the ranking of training options (if needed, such as face-to-face seminars, workshop, online compulsory module, or their suggested method). Results were sent to participants for verification after each iteration.

Data analysis

Data analysis was followed by Costa (2005) and Mallen et al. (2010) whereby data were collated and analyzed separately by two researchers. After each iteration, data from all of the participants were collated into a separate file for each question. This collated bank of data was reviewed individually by two individual researchers. After the initial review, researchers discussed their individual interpretations, constructed themes, and resolved any disagreements (Costa, 2005). The analysis framework is guided by Table 2: Categories to heat hazards are evident in the sport research and Table 3: Climate change adaptation options that are outlined above.

Results and discussion

The global issue of climatic heat hazards (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Glasser, 2020; IPCC, 2018) is noted to impact sport participants (Bernard et al., 2021; Vanos et al., 2019), management of sport facilities (Dingle & Mallen, 2021; Ross & Orr, 2022), and sport organizations (Dingle et al., 2022; Orr & Inoue, 2018). Source data evidence is now presented on how impacts from high temperatures on climate-exposed sport are perceived. Organizational responses are then considered through an adaptation lens.

Extreme heat and varsity sport impacts

Extreme heat impacts on varsity sport were rated as 6.2/10. An increase in extreme heat impacts on varsity sport for the next five years was foreseen and the average rating (1 = not a problem; 10 = extreme impact) was 5.72, with a mode of 7, and a median of 6. This rating does not follow Kahn’s (2016) position in the management literature that the topic should be a priority.

Heat issues, athletes, and game officials

Extreme heat impacts on athletes were reported with participants noting more than one impact. The most frequently reported impacts were dehydration (36%); heat stroke/exhaustion (24%); and muscle cramping (16%). Impacts less frequently reported were increased injury potential (8%); and 4% for each of performance impacts; practice/game delays; cancelations; an athlete passed out; athlete hospitalization; breathing impacts; turf burns; reduced enjoyment; and additional physiological demands. A minority of participants reported either no impacts (13.33%) or did not know (6.67%). This result illustrates that extreme heat is impacting the varsity sport industry. In particular, extreme heat is an issue within varsity sport at the institution under study. Furthermore, it extends sport management literature on specific extreme heat impacts in a varsity sport.

Heat impacts on varsity sport officials were reported by participants (40%). The heightened vulnerability of game officials, who are mostly seniors, is consistent with a small body of literature on refereeing and heat impacts (e.g. Gaoua et al., 2017).

Heat issues and sports fields

Heat impacts on synthetic turf were reported by participants (66.6%), twice the amount for natural turf fields (33.33%). Synthetic turf described as a “heat-sink” (P-3, P-12) was consistent with concerns in previous studies (e.g. Penn State Center for Sports’ Surface Research, n.d.; Thomas et al., 2014). Sample illustrative quotes for heat impacts are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Heat impacts: illustrative quotes.

Impacts of heat	Participants	Illustrative quotes
Impacts on synthetic turf	P-1, P-2, P-7, P-8, P-10, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-16, P-15, P-17, P-21, P-22, P-24, P-26, P-29, P-30	(P-7, P-15). “Turf can become so hot that it is unusable.” (P-14, P-15, P-24, P-29). “Feet get hot or burn” (P-14) and “swell” (P-14) (P-10, P-22). Rubber construction material increases the temperature of the turf (P-16, P-21, P-26). “Higher than the temperature in the air” (P-30), or “feels hotter than it currently is” (P-13) (P-10). “Heat can be seen radiating from the turf” (P-22). “Heat makes the ground ‘stiff' dry and crack/break” (P-8) (P-1). “Grooming difficulties” … and stretching/ripples “more likely” (P-12). “Equipment issues” e.g. “glue in player’s cleats begins to melt” (P-29). “Often feel warmer while on such a surface”
Impacts on natural turf	P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-13, P-14, P-18, P-30	(P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-18). Increased water/irrigation to maintain grass (P-30, P-18). Turf compaction (P-30) makes the surface “unsafe” (P-18) (P-1). “Difficulty growing grass” (P-14); “dryfields are hard to play on” (P-1). Increasing “weed encroachment” (P-18). Increased maintenance costs.
Reduced enjoyment	P-8, P-10	(P-8). Impacts “reduc[e] the enjoyment and proper competition of the sport.” (P-10). “Our sport is no longer played on grass [field hockey].”

Overall, results were in line with previous sport management research on the impacts of extreme heat on athletes, grass-based sports fields, and synthetic turf. The results demonstrate that heat hazards for these varsity sport programs are issues for health, comfort, enjoyment, and infrastructure. Management literature indicated such impacts can cause “reductions in worker productivity” (Heal & Park, 2016, p. 352). Further study is required to determine if this is happening in the sport.

Responses to heat

Planning for mitigating extreme heat impacts on sport has been recommended (Hosokawa et al., 2018). Participants (91.66%) indicated the Athletic Department was responding to extreme heat impacts, a response framed by the “hot weather plan” (HWP). The HWP required risk assessments for extreme heat with thresholds activating heat risk reduction actions are (1) a Humidex reading at or above 35°C. and/or; (2) a heat wave (3 or more days of temperatures of 32°C. or higher).

Heat risk reduction actions were reported by participants including increased hydration (87.5%); more rest breaks (82.6%); wetting skin with cold water, icepacks and/or cold wet towel (78.26%); consuming cold drinks (i.e. slushies) (75%); wearing lightweight clothing (52.38%); delaying or canceling games to avoid extreme heat (41.66%); outdoor mist spray (40%); outdoor fans (28.57%); and providing ice vests (14.28%). Adaptation of sport policies for managing heat extremes, such as the heat risk reduction actions above, was noted in previous studies (e.g. Chalmers & Jay, 2018; Mallen & Dingle, 2017; Dingle & Mallen, 2021). Illustrative quotes for responses to heat hazards are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Participant perspectives on adaptation to heat: Illustrative quotes.

Heat issues and proposed adaptation	Participants	Illustrative quotes
Inadequate water for the hydration of participants	P-4, P-6, P12, P-13	(P-13). If there were “more areas where water is available [that] will remind participants to stay hydrated throughout the day” (P-6). There should be “more encouragement to keep sipping at a water bottle at all times” (P-4). “Many areas do not have the infrastructure to have fountains out at spaces … therefore water must be transported to each field of play, that is a lot of resource investment to get that to happen and must be a part of planning of training and events”
Adaptation through shading	P-1, P-8, P-19, P-22, P-24	(P-8). [Providing more shade is an] “easy accommodation.” (P-22). [There is] “no reason that this cannot occur. It is a simple aid” (P-19). “It is just unnecessary to have rest periods in brilliant sun exposure” (P-24). “As a rugby player, we don’t have shade coverings that the soccer teams do. This would be amazing for the 1pm - 4pm games when the sun is at its peak” (P-1). “On extreme heat days, shade might still be too hot of an environment to promote adequate body-cooling for heat-stressed athletes”
Rescheduling to cooler parts of the day	P-1, P-8, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-17, P-28, P-30	(P-1). [Moving play to the cooler times of day/evening involved] “Administrative control which costs virtually no money” (P-8, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-17, P-30). Allows players to compete in a safe environment and to perform their best (P-13, P-28) (P-12). “Ensures the safety of all staff related to the hosting of events (officials, time-keepers, events and facility staff), and spectators” (P-5). [Rescheduling] is a “better solution than the postponements … There would be no delays in the schedule throughout the season”
Educate participants, coaches and facility staff to understand heat conditions and risk reduction	P-2, P-3, P-4, P-7, P-22	(P-2). [Athletic therapists need to be educated about extreme heat management] “for optimal safety procedures” (P-22). [There is a need for greater] “education on hydration prior to training/practice/games and providing Gatorade, water, etc.” (P-3). [Extend this education to game officials/referees] “to seek the safety of air conditioning during halftime breaks” (P-7). [Education is needed to raise] “awareness spread to coaches who might not see this as an issue (‘we suffered in the heat so they can too’)”
Flexible scheduling	P-2, P-4, P-7, P-8, P-11, P-13, P-20,	(P-5). “When the NHL played their season in July/August during the first wave of COVID, there was one quote that sticks with me … . there is no law that says hockey has to be played between September and June, it is just what we have come to know after seasons of play. This might not apply to varsity sport because it happens during the school months, but maybe some seasons played throughout the year can be rescheduled a little earlier to push a little later in the year.” (P-8). [change] from long practice formats to multiple shorter practices (P-12). “ … shift to indoor training” during extreme heat” (P-20). [encourage] “more substitutions” during games (P-1). “ … change the length of period of a game” (P-4). “ … additional breaks in game” (P-1). Consider “developing a new game format (e.g. small field with less players) so it could be more easily adapted to more indoor facilities” (P-13). Flexibility in facility design included recommendations for “designs that will mitigate heat and shaded areas for the spectators and athletes” (P-11). “ … invest in domes where the temperature could be controlled” (P-2). Establish “areas designated for cooling”

These results indicate the topic is following the path outlined by Carney (2021) and Owen (2020) as growing in priority and value. Furthermore, it is consistent with Kahn’s (2016) view that organizations need to be accountable for the welfare of individuals within their firm. The results indicate that varsity management is working toward this end, albeit not in the transformational manner proposed by Berrang-Ford et al. (2021) and Glasser (2020).

Heat issues and inadequate awareness of heat risks or training to prevent heat stress

A lack of awareness of safety risks associated with extreme heat and the insufficient ability to recognize unsafe conditions, and prevention was perceived among some athletes, coaches, and officials. Participants shared recommendations for managing extreme heat. Adaptations that were strongly recommended are listed in order of priority:

1. More water resources (average/mean 9.03/10; median 10; mode 10)

2. More shade options (average/mean 7.73/10, median 8, mode 10)

3. Schedule practices/games played on synthetic turf for cooler times of the day/evening (average rating 7.27/10, median 8, mode 10).

Generating adaptation options was determined to be part of a shift toward an effective response (Carney, 2021).

Education and safety recommendations positioned varsity athletes, coaches, trainers, therapists, and officials as responsible for recognizing symptoms of heat stress, and implementing risk reduction strategies, not just athletic department managers. The training was valued to ensure all parties understand/respond to extreme heat conditions. In order of priority, four training options were recommended: (1) team-specific workshops; (2) face-to-face seminars; (3) an app (software) with heat data; (4) compulsory online modules.

Cell phone apps

A cell phone app providing “heat indexes to help guide safe play” (P-3) was recommended because multiple members of varsity athletics were considered responsible for implementing the HWP. Transparent heat data (temperature and humidex readings) through an app for the purpose of recognizing heat stress were important – including understanding heat data on an hourly basis (P-30).

The Wet Bulb Global Temperature (WBGT) is an accepted method for determining the combined impact on humans of heat and humidity (Alfano et al., 2014) and for preventing heat stress and illness. A WBGT of 35°C. marks our “upper physiological limit” (Raymond et al., 2020, p. 1838) whereby “evaporation and cooling can no longer take place because the atmosphere is saturated with water” (Prévost-Manuel, 2021, para. 7). Apps already available (e.g. WBGT Calculator) illustrate the value of technology for informing decision-making about safe conditions for a varsity sport.

Participants understood a system for integrating both heat and humidity data was a good standard (P-3, P-4, P-7, P-8, P-12, P-21, P-29) for safety purposes (P-2, P-6, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-18, P-20). Despite the benefits of apps and their use in sport such as athletics (Vanos & Grundstein, 2020), the limitations of the technology have been noted and more research is needed to determine best practices in hot weather.

Alternative surfaces

Participants were mostly opposed to alternative sport surfaces (i.e. sand, clay) (65.38%). Reasons included: “some sports do not allow for that to happen as the nature of the sport is ball speed for example” (P-17), “the surface is what makes the game ELITE” (P-10), “removing the grass/turf changes the sport completely. I don’t believe that compromising the sports field will do any good. At that point, why bother playing the game?” (P-8), and “I just cannot imagine football being played on an alternative surface besides grass and artificial turf” (P-5). Adaptive thinking concerning alternative surfaces was not reported by participants.

Heat responses through an adaptation lens: lessons for sport managers

Significantly, there was evidence the Athletic Department was responding to extreme heat events and their impacts on a varsity sport with their hot weather plan. Furthermore, a recommendation was made for the institution to review its HWP for alignment with the wet-bulb calculation or other such scientific measures.

Participants offered suggestions concerning being flexible with respect to a varsity sport and extreme heat events. Multiple strategies were proposed, including adapting practices and games, that need to be examined for consideration in the future.

Participants recommended enhanced training/education on extreme heat management for a broad base of varsity management and participants. This positioned varsity sport members as responsible for recognizing and implementing risk reduction strategies for extreme heat – beyond being just the responsibility of the Athletic Department administrators. Participants recommended a “buddy system” within each sport team to encourage co-observations to detect/report symptoms of heat stress. Concern for game officials in extreme heat led to recommendations for their safety during extreme heat events.

Apps providing the real-time temperature and humidity data were promoted to build knowledge/action for specific daily conditions. This validates Orr’s (2020) argument that “athletes and coaches must be increasingly aware of and actively seeking information on all climate risks” (p. 12).

Valuable insights for sport managers and organizations emerged. To begin, climate change responses were evident and consistent with Berrang-Ford et al.’s (2021) framework. For example, the actions of the varsity sport coaches and athletes were mainly behavioral and/or cultural (e.g. increased hydration, more rest breaks, cold drinks). Also, participant recommendations for managing extreme heat were the characteristic of institutional responses (e.g. training). Technological and/or infrastructure responses were also evident (e.g. WBGT apps and concerns about synthetic surfaces).

Additionally, through the lens of climate adaptation, the responses are the characteristic of either incremental adaptation – changes to existing programs – or no-regret/low-regret adaptation – implemented regardless of climate change – that the fundamental, long-term, strategic nature of transformative adaptation. Such responses were not transitioning sport to manage future extreme heat impacts.

Adaptation characteristic of the incremental option is evident in the small-scale responses (e.g. increased hydration, more rest breaks, cold drinks, training, apps). Classifying such responses as no-regret adaptation is also feasible as benefits accrue to varsity sport participants irrespective of climate change (i.e. immediate relief from heat stress). Further evidence of incremental and/or no-regret adaptation can be seen in the absence of groundwork adaptation. The absence of evidence, suggesting responses to extreme heat – either actual or recommended – were part of an anticipated adaptation pathway (Fedele et al., 2019; Magnan et al., 2020), confirms their place at the lower end of the adaptation spectrum.

Furthermore, adaptation strategies do not require a return to pre-climatic conditions (Keenan, 2015). However, in the longer term, adaptation to heat hazards is likely to be more effective if transformative (Rickards, 2013). With global warming anticipated as a multi-decadal issue, the “everydayness” of extreme heat (Oppermann et al., 2018) may necessitate adaptation to be repositioned as “everyday practice” (Oppermann et al., 2018) for sport in some locations.

Sport is challenged to adapt to climate impacts. However, knowledge about adaptation in industries is limited (Brunette et al., 2018) and a consensus regarding how to adapt is elusive (Brown & Wilby, 2012).

Limitations and future research

This paper offers insights into the sport-climate-adaptation nexus, yet has limitations. First, location-specific impacts are a feature of climate change (Kiem & Verdon-Kidd, 2011), so caution can be applied to generalizing the impacts on a varsity sport reported in this study to a varsity sport in other institutions or nations. Furthermore, research on heat impacts, responses, and adaptation in sport is needed, along with other forms of climate impacts (i.e. fast-onset, slow-onset) in national contexts to build on the basis of knowledge on adaptations in sport for extreme heat. Importantly, the management literature indicates that if heat shocks persist, the growth of the industry may be adversely affected. Additional study is needed to determine if extreme heat is impacting participants’ desire to continue in the sport and if this will impact the growth rate of the sport industry. Also, the management literature indicates such impacts can cause “reductions in worker productivity” (Heal & Park, 2016, p. 352) so further studies can determine if this is happening in the sport. As argued by Kahn (2016), measurements of the success of adaptations are also a critical area of future study. Furthermore, little is understood about the costs to the sport of adapting to climate change. Given the cost considerations, additional qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods studies are appropriate.

This study offers sport management researchers an avenue for comparing situations in specific sports, organizations and other nations, and is intended to inform future research pertaining to heat impacts and sport management.

Conclusion

Climatic heat hazards are a contemporary global issue. Research literature indicates that heat hazards impact sport participants, management of sport facilities, and sport organizations. In the varsity program examined in this study, extreme heat was a challenge. This study extends sport management literature by situating sport participation and management within the context of a warming global climate system and by examining the nexus between heat hazards and varsity sport. This study advances research literature in four key ways by (1) identifying domains of climate impacts in sport reported in the research literature including cascading impacts, (2) confirming that the scope of climate-related heat impacts extends to the varsity sector of the sport industry, (3) identifying adaptation being implemented in sport, and (4) presenting options for organizational climate adaptation. The primary source data confirmed extreme heat can impact the varsity sport in Canada in the domains of participants and sport facilities. While some heat impacts on climate-exposed varsity sport programs were evident, impacts on the university organization were not significant at this time.

The results also suggest elements of incremental or no-regret adaptation. Transformational adaptation was not evident. Multiple suggestions were offered for future adaptations. The results suggest that this part of the varsity sport sector has made preliminary strides but has not transitioned to strategic thinking about the long-term challenge of adapting to a warmer global climate. Kay and Vamplew’s (2006) argument that the sport needs comprehensive plans for climatic events thus remains unrealized. Implications of the evidence presented in this study are that sport managers need to understand adaptation options in a warming climate, develop timely and effective responses, and measure and manage ongoing responses and the transition to meet the challenges of the sport. Sport managers do not need to do this alone. An opening exists for sport management researchers to assist by working with sport managers to develop a robust body of knowledge on strategic options. Can sport managers and researchers work hand-in-hand to overcome such challenges in the transition to sport in a warming climate? Time will tell.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).