In the latest Quest
Sustainability – the key to the future of our soccer stadia
QUEST spoke to the experts who are making sure that the money spent on building our soccer stadia is being used wisely.
In June and July 2010 South Africa is host to Africa’s first Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup™.
Since we were awarded the World Cup in May 2004 ten soccer stadiums around the country have undergone an extensive process of rebuilding and refurbishment, and in some cases total reconstruction.
Although we have generally excellent infrastructure, South Africa is a country in which there is still an enormous social divide, as is the case on the rest of the continent. As a result, the government, through the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), as part of South Africa’s bid campaign, promised that hosting the World Cup would ensure ‘a lasting social legacy through the event and leverage the event to spread economic and social benefits beyond the borders of South Africa.’
The Green Goal initiative
This process is not without its impacts – the main one being on the environment around the stadia. The 2006 FIFA Soccer World Cup™ was held in Germany – a country with far more resources than South Africa – and it was the preparations for this event that lead to the development of the Green Goal™ initiative.
The Green Goal™ is simple – the environmental impact of the events associated with the World Cup should be minimised as far as possible. However, as previously stated, in South Africa we need to consider more than just the environmental costs.
The Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) was developed to provide a framework for the development of the built environment in a developing country such as South Africa. The tool is based on international best practice in the industry and has been modified and refined to reflect the South African situation. The project started in July 2007 and was undertaken by Green by Design (GbD), Paul Carew Consulting (PjC) and the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
The Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)
The SBAT was developed to provide a framework for the development of the built environment in a developing country such as South Africa. The tool is based on international best practice in the industry and has been modified and refined to reflect the South African situation.
There are five criteria in all three sustainability areas:
- Economic – local economy, efficiency, adaptability and flexibility, ongoing costs and capital costs
- Environmental – water, energy, waste, site, materials and components
- Social – occupant comfort, inclusive environments, access to facilities, participation and control, education, health and safety
This provides a solid framework that is used to assess the sustainability performance of proposed designs and existing buildings.
Jeremy Gibberd and Nosizo Sebake from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Built Environment Unit, modified the original SBAT tool so that it could be used specifically for stadia.
How is SBAT for Stadia used?
The tool was developed after stadium construction had started, so had little impact on stadium design.
The two CSIR researchers, did, however, examine other aspects of sustainability, in particular the social and economic concerns, as well as environmental ones.
The SBAT report in the diagram indicates that the overall sustainability performance of the sample stadium is good and fairly well balanced across the three different sustainability areas.
Relatively poorly performing areas include efficiency, capital costs and materials and components, which rated just under a score of 3 (Average).
Areas that appear to perform well include the local economy, adaptability and site and rated well over 3 (Good to Very Good).
The overall rating of 3.4 (Good) indicates that the approach taken is robust and may lead to a Very Good sustainability performance through the adoption of sustainable technology and management techniques. The balanced performance (ratings vary from 3.3 to 3.5) within the three sustainability areas shows that there has been an even and effective handling of the performance objectives and that one area (such as environmental issues) has not been allowed to eclipse the others.
This balance is likely to have been achieved as a result of the experience of the professional team, the procurement policy and other policies being applied to the project.
How has SBAT for Stadia been applied?
Among the ten stadia that were either constructed or restored for the World Cup, five participated in a SBAT for Stadia review. In all five cases the South African Department of Environmental Affairs, through the Urban Environmental Management Programme (UEMP), which is commissioned by the Royal Danish Embassy, commissioned a review of the greening status of the official FIFA World Cup™ training and match stadia. This not only established how green the stadium designs were, but also gave the design teams the opportunity to enhance some of the green aspects of their design.
Athlone stadium
Athlone stadium, in Cape Town, is an interesting example of the use of SBAT for Stadia. The stadium was not refurbished for matches, but as a ‘fan park’ and for training. But this did not stop the contractors from looking at the sustainability of the project, particularly as this stadium is in one of the less affluent areas of Cape Town.
The plan was to increase the stadium’s capacity to 30 000 under-roof seats. A review of the sustainability of the project, using SBAT for Stadia only started after the refurbishment, which had already started in 2008. So the sustainability review team realised that large-scale interventions would not be possible.
However, smaller interventions and improvements in management of the facilities could still play a major role in the ‘greening’ of the stadium. The key issues that they identified included training and incentives for facilities-management staff and construction workers, monitoring the stadium’s social and economic impact, specifically the local economy, and improving the quality and security of pedestrian access and paths.
Specific interventions
One of the main interventions at Athlone stadium was in terms of water consumption, which was minimised through a number of interventions:
- Dual-flush toilets in VIP facilities
- Only the pitch is irrigated
- No additional landscaping
- Most hand-wash basins in public facilities supplied with cold water only
- Stadium design allowing for the installation of water meters without having to redo the plumbing.
Energy efficiency was another important area. Energy-efficient features that were being considered, or which had already been implemented, include:
- As an open stadium, ventilation is natural (wind-driven) while natural light penetrates the stands.
- Different floodlighting levels for training and actual matches.
- A generator is hired to power the floodlights during matches.
- As hot water is sourced from individual geysers, water heating could be isolated or timed. Geysers only need to be switched on when and where they are needed.
- Hot water is not provided for spectators’ ablutions.
- Compact fluorescent light bulbs should be fitted in all internal spaces.
- Feature lighting is linked to a timer or light sensor.
- The stadium is wired to facilitate load shedding. Geysers and nonessential lighting circuits can be switched off if the load reaches maximum capacity.
- The large roof expanse could be exploited for a photovoltaic installation.
In other interventions it was suggested that waste generated by the refurbishment should be documented before being sent to landfill sites, in an effort to keep this to a minimum and that waste collected in the stadium itself be separated for recycling. Public transport to the stadium would be encouraged, with an upgrade to the nearby rail station, as well as the introduction to ‘park-and-ride’ facilities.
The triple bottom line
Unlike the World Cup in Germany, where the focus was exclusively on environmental issues, the performance of the Athlone stadium was measured in relation to social, economic as well as environmental criteria. And it was in terms of the local economy and spectator comfort that Athlone scored.
The refurbishment of the stadium was carried out using local labour, local building materials, local components and fittings, local furniture and maintenance will be carried out by locals. The stadium has also been developed in a way that allows alternative uses, important when the World Cup is over.
Similar sustainability studies have been carried out on Moses Mabhida stadium, Durban, Green Point stadium, Cape Town, Royal Bafokeng stadium, Rustenburg and Peter Mokaba stadium, Polokwane.
Green Point stadium was also assessed as being in line with the City of Cape Town’s policy of procuring services from small businesses and historically disadvantaged individuals and use of local resources. For example, the project provided local employment.
Green Point stadium is surrounded by a multi-functional urban park, replacing a previously unattractive and under-used area of the city. Being a big match stadium, particular attention was also paid to spectator comfort and access by disabled people. There are transport facilities within 400 m of the stadium, lifts to all levels of the stadium and toilets no more than 50 m from seating. The stadium is also close to accommodation.
