Motivators to Become Water-Friendly
While it is good that stadiums are taking an interest in the environmental impact they have, achieving a LEED certification can also lead to significant tax breaks from a city. This begs the question of if stadium facilities and sports teams actually care about the environment, or if they believe it will bring more economic benefits. This brings back the idea that sports stadiums are just ways to make more money and that residents of a city surrounding the stadium are seen as customers. To achieve the LEED certification, a lot of stadium designers tend to pick the easiest and cheapest options that would give enough points for a certification. Additionally, “only fourteen percent of [LEED certified] buildings actually create renewable energy and only twelve percent incorporate water-reduction plans . . .” This brings the idea of “greenwashing” to the table.
“Greenwashing” is the idea that “teams are simply doing external, cursory green activities to earn a positive public appearance, while doing little to solve bigger, overall problems.” Reminding the community that sports teams are businesses, a stadium investing in green infrastructure is just that: an investment. Green infrastructure is more expensive than their traditional counterparts. Sports teams will only invest if they believe it will help them, not necessarily if it will help their communities.
While their motives for investing in green infrastructure may be questionable, investing is economically beneficial for both the city and the stadium. Although the initial investment can be enough to turn off some managers to the thought of improving their stadium, in the long run the investment can turn out a profit. Green infrastructure also means the creation of green jobs that can boost local economies. In this sense, green infrastructure can bolster a community that typically employees unskilled and seasonal jobs at the stadium such as “ticket takers, ushers, vendors, restaurant and bar workers, and taxi drivers” among others.
As stated previously, stadiums that have introduced green initiatives are offered tax breaks. In some cities, stadium proposals must include “pro-environmental features before being considered for taxpayer support.” In this sense, policy-makers have more control over what is constructed and how it will be paid for. Policy-makers and local governments should be encouraging stadiums to introduce more green initiatives because “given that teams are highly autonomous during the facility planning process, decisions to incorporate green designs into new venues are likely to rest on ownership and local government.” They are the decision makers when it comes to construction, and they have the ability to withhold funds until the stadium is green enough for their liking.
For some stadiums, these requirements are welcomed. For example, “the city of Santa Clara offers rebates to all residents and businesses for landscaping, commercial washing machines, and lower-cost recycled water . . ., meaning the 49ers saw an immediate economic advantage to utilizing recycled water.” Not only did this help the city of Santa Clara but also gave the 49ers a large motivation to be more environmentally friendly. Even if the motivation was saving money, it is better than staying as a traditional stadium which would have more environmental impacts.
Budget tends to be the motivator for sports stadiums. Again, sports teams are businesses and consider their communities as customers. However, “Despite the added cost of LEED-certified facilities, . . . the long-term savings of green buildings [are] significant: energy costs in LEED-certified buildings were 31 percent lower, while operating costs were US$.70 per square foot less than their non-LEED equivalents.” The cents add up until the savings are so significant any manger would jump at the chance to save that much money. Increased emphasis on water conservation tends to save even more money. With greener aspects comes “positive publicity, new sponsorship opportunities, tax credits, reduced utility costs, longer facility lifecycles, and long-term savings . . .” The idea comes down to if managers are willing to spend more to save more. Those that choose not to spend more on green initiatives end up spending more in the long run.
