What is the value of nature to athletes? Not in poetic or philosophical terms, but in real, economic ones. 

That’s the question at the heart of this BENCHES ‘Deliverable 2.5: Measurement of ecosystem service values in sports’, which explores how athletes perceive and value the ecosystems they train and compete in. 

You can read the full report here.

It’s the first time the ecosystem services framework – commonly used to estimate the value of forests, rivers or wetlands in conservation or policy contexts – has been applied so directly to the sporting world. Rather than focusing on the ecological impact of sport, this work flips the perspective, asking instead: what do natural spaces give to sport?

Willingness to pay

The study focused on two outdoor sports – canoeing/kayaking and mountain running – and sought to capture the cultural value of the natural venues where these activities take place. Using a well-established economic method known as “stated preference”, the BENCHES technical partners, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, surveyed athletes to estimate their willingness to pay to protect the ecosystems that support their sporting practice. The results represent a step forward in quantifying the intangible: the emotional, recreational and spiritual benefits athletes gain from nature, expressed in monetary terms.

The BENCHES team also hosted a webinar (see below), featuring lead researcher, Giulia Alessandri, and World Sailing director of sustainability, Alexandra Rickham, to unpack the findings.

The decision to focus on two disciplines was deliberate. Canoe/kayak competitions provided a lens into freshwater ecosystems, while mountain running represented terrestrial, high-altitude environments. 

The goal was to test the approach in two contrasting biomes. Importantly, the focus was not a single event, but the broader “natural venue” used for both training and competition – a choice that avoided limiting the assessment to one-off conditions and instead captured how athletes engage with ecosystems over time.

The methodology centred on a tailored survey, distributed at real events in 2024. Athletes were asked how often they train, how emotionally connected they feel to their natural environments, whether they had received guidance on environmental protection from their sport organisations, and how much they would be willing to pay annually to preserve the ecological integrity of these spaces. The economic values proposed were realistic and specific, refined through a pre-survey and offered as fixed options to encourage thoughtful responses.

In total, 192 athletes responded – 154 from canoeing/kayaking and 38 from mountain running. After filtering incomplete responses and controlling for protest responses (where participants rejected the idea of putting a price on nature rather than expressing an inability to pay), the research calculated an average willingness to pay of €160.37 for canoeists and kayakers, and €110.58 for mountain runners. 

These figures were then scaled to reflect the average number of participants at events in each sport and projected over a 20-year period (the estimated average span of an athlete’s engagement with a sport) using a standard 3.5% discount rate. The final result: an actualised ecosystem value of €721,266 for freshwater venues and €628,690 for mountainous ones.

These numbers are useful not as market prices, but as indicators of perceived value. They show that many athletes feel a strong personal connection to the environments they use, and that this connection translates into a concrete sense of worth. 

Emotional bond

The results suggest that emotional bonds with nature are at least as important as financial means or professional level in shaping willingness to pay. Amateur athletes were just as likely, and in some cases more likely, to express a high willingness to pay than their professional peers, perhaps because of a stronger association between nature and recreation. Women, younger athletes and those with higher levels of education were also more inclined to support environmental contributions.

Awareness appears to play a significant role. Athletes who had received environmental guidance from their federations or event organisers were more likely to value nature and be willing to contribute to its protection. Yet a large proportion of respondents did not recall receiving any such information – and many believed their sport had no impact on flora or fauna, despite evidence to the contrary. 

This highlights the potential for targeted communication to bridge the gap between intention and understanding. If athletes recognise the pressures their activities place on biodiversity, their already strong emotional connections could be translated into stronger support for conservation efforts.

The study is not without limitations. The sample sizes, particularly for mountain running, were small, and the athletes surveyed were all based in Italy, where both events took place. The economic values are therefore not representative of entire disciplines or geographies. Still, the methodology is replicable and adaptable. It could easily be extended to other sports, countries and ecosystems, or used over time to track shifts in perception and value. 

What matters is not the absolute figure, but the signal it sends: nature matters to athletes, and they are willing to invest in it.

Get the full ‘Deliverable 2.5: Measurement of ecosystem service values in sports’ here.

Supply chains are often overlooked when it comes to biodiversity, yet they offer one of the clearest opportunities for sport to make meaningful progress. 

That’s the key message from this latest BENCHES report, which examines how five sports partners – World Sailing, the Italian Canoe and Kayak Federation, World Athletics, Sport Lisboa e Benfica and the International Biathlon Union – are approaching biodiversity across their procurement activities. 

Read the full report here.

While sustainability is becoming a more familiar topic within sport, its integration into supply chains is still in the early stages. Biodiversity, in particular, tends not to be explicitly addressed in procurement policies, supplier engagement or sourcing decisions – but the potential to do so is significant.

The research combined interviews with procurement teams at both federation and event level, alongside a review of procurement documents and supply chain procedures. 

Across all five case studies, there was a general absence of formal processes for assessing suppliers based on biodiversity-related criteria. Sustainability policies existed in several cases, but biodiversity was rarely singled out. Most suppliers were selected based on cost, availability or long-standing relationships, and while some sustainability clauses appeared in contracts, these were often not followed up with structured monitoring or data collection.

Event-level procurement often sits with local organising committees or municipal partners, which can limit the ability of sports organisations to implement specific environmental standards. 

In some cases, materials such as tents, stages or furniture were provided by local authorities, with limited traceability over where these items came from or how they were produced. For example, at the Kontiolahti Biathlon World Cup, temporary infrastructure arrived from several parts of Finland, but information on sourcing and potential ecological risks wasn’t available. At the World Sailing regatta in Hyères, procurement was also managed by the local municipality, with no specific biodiversity criteria in place.

Even where infrastructure and materials are designed for reuse – as was the case at the mountain running event in Canfranc or the canoe slalom in Ivrea – the origin of materials is not always tracked. 

Certifications such as FSC for wood or recycled content for plastic were not consistently requested, and practices like assessing the risk of introducing invasive species through shipping or planting were not common.

That said, there are encouraging developments. World Athletics has produced guidance to help event organisers embed sustainability into procurement, including suggestions around reusability and waste reduction. Benfica is working to include sustainability clauses in its merchandise licensing contracts, and a new circular design initiative has already reused tens of thousands of scarves collected during the pandemic. In Ivrea, organisers sourced materials and food locally and adopted a plastic-free approach across all suppliers, highlighting how smaller events can take action even with limited resources.

One consistent theme across the research is that procurement teams, both at federation and event level, are open to strengthening their sustainability performance, but often lack dedicated tools or support to do so in a biodiversity-specific way. 

That’s where the BENCHES project sees an opportunity. By aligning with existing frameworks such as the EU Deforestation Regulation or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), sport can begin to prioritise the most relevant materials – wood, paper, certain textiles, food and packaging – and set clear expectations for traceability or certification. This doesn’t require assessing every product or supplier at once; it can begin with a focused set of materials and gradually expand.

Rather than seeing biodiversity as a complex or separate issue, the report suggests integrating it into existing procurement discussions. A simple checklist of biodiversity risks associated with key materials, combined with clear language in supplier contracts and a few well-chosen certifications, could lay the foundations for much wider impact. 

In parallel, federations and clubs can support event organisers, especially those working with municipalities, by offering template clauses or recommended practices that reflect biodiversity priorities.

While the current picture shows room for growth, the potential is clear. Supply chains touch every aspect of sport – from catering and merchandising to infrastructure and waste – and each of these areas presents an opportunity to reduce pressure on ecosystems. By gradually embedding biodiversity thinking into procurement decisions, sport can extend its sustainability ambition and make a practical contribution to nature conservation.

Get the full ‘Deliverable 2.3: Report on Supply Chain Pressures on Biodiversity’ here.

Sport is increasingly waking up to its responsibilities when it comes to biodiversity, but the picture on the ground still varies widely. 

That’s the main takeaway from a report exploring the pressures sporting events place on nature across five disciplines and settings. Produced as part of the BENCHES project – which aims to develop tools and practices to support biodiversity management in sport – the research focused on real-world experiences at events run by World Sailing, the Italian Canoe and Kayak Federation, World Athletics, Sport Lisboa e Benfica and the International Biathlon Union.

To understand the interactions between sport and ecosystems, the BENCHES technical partner, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, conducted on-site visits at a regatta in France, a canoe slalom event in Italy, a mountain running championship in Spain, a top-tier football match in Portugal and a biathlon World Cup round in Finland. 

Read the full report deliverable here.

These site visits were guided by a checklist rooted in ISO environmental standards, supported by desk research and supply chain reviews. The analysis focused on five established pressures on biodiversity: climate change, land use change, pollution, overexploitation and invasive species. 

The idea was to go beyond general sustainability claims and examine how events are actually run – what’s measured, what’s ignored and where the gaps lie.

Site visits

World Sailing’s Last Chance Regatta in Hyères took place within a protected marine area, home to seagrass beds, endangered reptiles and hundreds of bird and fish species. Yet despite this ecologically rich context, no biodiversity management system was in place. 

The event organisers took steps to limit their impact, for example, using electric VIP boats, encouraging low-carbon transport and installing non-anchored buoys to protect the seabed. But there was no comprehensive strategy, no appointed sustainability manager and little recognition of the biodiversity value of the site. Waste sorting was incomplete, boat emissions were only partially addressed and invasive species risks from international equipment and athletes were largely unexamined.

In Ivrea, the canoe slalom World Cup was staged in a semi-artificial whitewater course running through the town centre. The organisers appointed an environmental manager and took steps to reduce plastic and localise supply chains. Simple infrastructure changes, like adding fish ladders to the artificial channel, helped offset some ecological disruption. 

However, the lack of clear biodiversity guidance from the international federation meant supply chain engagement and invasive species prevention remained underdeveloped. Equipment chemicals used by athletes went unregulated, and while local sourcing was strong, the traceability and certification of materials and food remained unclear.

The World Masters Mountain Running Championships in Canfranc, Spain, presented a different scenario: a low-footprint event in a mountainous area, with limited infrastructure and a route that didn’t cross protected land. 

On the surface, the event appeared light on biodiversity impacts. But that assumption was undermined by some revealing gaps. Race flags were tied directly to vegetation, branches were cut to clear paths and helicopters were used to drop and collect food and waste at remote points. Music blared across the mountain range throughout the day, and no measures were taken to assess wildlife sensitivity or presence of key habitats. 

Despite the host municipality’s environmental ambitions, the race lacked a defined sustainability strategy, and its integration with biodiversity considerations was minimal.

At the Estádio da Luz in Lisbon, S.L. Benfica operates one of Europe’s most high-capacity football venues, drawing almost a million spectators each season. The match under review (a high-profile clash against FC Porto) was complemented by a site visit to Benfica Campus, the club’s training centre located next to a key estuarine wetland. 

In contrast to the other cases, Benfica had clear structures in place, aligned with UEFA’s sustainability goals. Environmental indicators are tracked, landscaping is maintained with some attention to native species and energy efficiency projects are underway. 

Yet even here, the biodiversity implications of operating adjacent to sensitive wetland habitats were not addressed with any specificity. The risk of invasive species from turf management, equipment or even landscaping choices appeared to go unmonitored.

Finally, the biathlon World Cup in Kontiolahti offered an interesting mix of seasonal pressures and proactive measures. As a winter event dependent on artificial snow and located in a boreal forest, it faces significant risks related to land and resource use. The International Biathlon Union has made biodiversity part of its sustainability commitments, and the local organisers had implemented practices such as reusing snow and minimising the footprint of temporary structures. 

Still, biodiversity data and monitoring were limited, and while climate mitigation was considered, the broader ecological impacts of event operations were not fully integrated into planning.

Recommendations

Taken together, the five site visits revealed that while environmental awareness is growing in sport, biodiversity is still the poor relation of climate and carbon when it comes to action. 

Even events held in or near ecologically significant areas frequently lacked baseline data, impact monitoring or event-specific management strategies. Engagement with supply chains could have been stronger across the board, with very few examples of procurement decisions factoring in biodiversity criteria or traceability standards. 

The risk of invasive species – a particularly acute threat in events involving international participants, outdoor settings and shared equipment – was largely ignored. Waste management varied from well-structured in urban venues to patchy and delayed in remote mountain locations.

The report makes clear that sport needs to go beyond generic sustainability checklists and embrace biodiversity as a core part of responsible event management. 

That means building biodiversity assessments into planning, developing clear protocols to manage the five key pressures and ensuring procurement and infrastructure decisions are informed by ecological risks. It means sharing knowledge and expectations with staff, athletes and suppliers, and establishing monitoring systems that can provide reliable data for future improvements. 

Above all, it means seeing nature not just as a backdrop to sport, but as something fragile, valuable and in need of active protection. Because while sport depends on healthy ecosystems, it also has the power – and increasingly, the responsibility – to help preserve them.

Get the full ‘Deliverable 2.2: Report on the Pressures of Sport Events on Biodiversity’ here.