Abstract
Purpose
It is crucial to create an inclusive society through sport. Many researchers have focused on the social benefits of hosting events and identified the necessity of revealing the impact of parasport. There is inadequate knowledge of what local residents perceive from spectating non-mega-parasporting events. Therefore, this research aimed to reveal the influence of spectators' perceived social benefits, subjective well-being, and support for parasport events.
Design/methodology/approach
A survey was conducted with questionnaires distributed to spectators of two wheelchair basketball tournaments. Of the 2,100 questionnaires distributed, 1,996 were returned; of these, 1,544 were rejected because of not having local resident status. The final response rate of useable questionnaires was 22.6% (n = 452).
Findings
Both community benefits and cultural/educational benefits positively affected subjective well-being, which also significantly affected support for the event. Further, there was no significant moderating effect of having family members or close friends with disability.
Practical implications
The results indicate that sporting event managers can collaborate with local educational boards and use sporting events as educational material for children to raise next-generation, highly diversity-minded leaders from the local area.
Originality/value
This study revealed that parasporting events have educational value. Additionally, athletes with disabilities inspire spectators, which changes the perception of their educational impacts.
Keywords
Citation
Yamashita, R. and Muneda, M. (2021), "Spectators' perceived social benefits, subjective well-being and support intention: non-mega-parasporting events' educational perspective", International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 454-469. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-03-2021-0026
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Cities bid to host sporting events for various reasons (Hautbois et al., 2020). Hosting sporting events is an essential strategy for community development (Inoue et al., 2018) and positively impacts the quality of life of people living in the host communities (Taks et al., 2015). From these perspectives, local community support for a sporting event is crucial, especially for hosting such events in the long term (Ma et al., 2011). However, the scholarly literature has paid little attention to parasporting events, which is a missed opportunity for facilitating the legacy potential of destinations for residents and visitors. However, because of the increasing attention to parasport, from a practical aspect, it is considered that hosting of parasporting events could help the society change drastically (Dashper and Fletcher, 2013; Yamashita, 2021). For example, after Tokyo won the bid to host the 2020 Paralympic Games, the Japanese government expressed the need to create an inclusive society through sport by remodeling existing buildings to increase accessibility and foster an understanding of the needs of persons with disabilities. Creating an inclusive society by hosting sporting events is thus crucial because local residents could also benefit from participating in the event; however, the residents' perception of such hosting, ways in which these events could enhance their well-being, and their attitudes toward future events remains unclear.
Hosting a mega-sporting event, such as the Olympic and FIFA World Cup, has diverse impacts, such as those on the economy and tourism in the local community (Fredline, 2005; Ritchie, 1984). According to Kaplanidou (2021), both mega- and non-mega-sporting events are catalytic forces for the local community and its residents. However, despite the positive impacts of mega-sporting events, there are concerns about the consequent financial burdens, utilization of facilities after hosting, and environmental destruction, which could outweigh the benefits (Gibson et al., 2012). Furthermore, from academic and practical viewpoints, the focus has shifted from mega- to non-mega-sporting events (Kelly and Fairley, 2018; Taks, 2013).
On the contrary, “small-to-medium-sized sport events” (Taks et al., 2014) can better benefit the local community, including by inspiring potential participants. Additionally, compared with mega-sporting events, non-mega-sporting events can be held more frequently in the same host city because their outcomes provide more favorable opportunities, such as increasing their human capitals, for host communities (Taks, 2013). This creates durable and recognizable benefits, especially social impacts for host communities and their residents (Gibson et al., 2012). A comprehensive study found it critical to understand the residents' needs and overviewed sporting events' social impacts that have changed over the past two decades (Kaplanidou, 2021). From 2000 to 2010, studies examining perceived social impacts of sporting events used temporal approaches, such as how residents' perception of social impacts changed before and after the event; however, more recent research purely focused on these events' social impacts and evaluated them holistically (Kaplanidou, 2021).
Globally, studies have introduced the social exchange theory to develop various social benefit scales in the mega-sporting event context (e.g. Huang et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2015; Kim and Walker, 2012; Liu et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2013; Mao and Huang, 2016). This theory is one of the most popular ones adapted to research on social impacts and benefits (Taks and Oshimi, 2020). However, the social exchange theory is also criticized because this “modern exchange theory is neither a completely original nor satisfactory paradigm for social science in virtue of being a mixture of elements from psychological behavourism” (Zafirovski, 2005).
Therefore, the current study uses the means-end chain theory to reveal how local residents spectating parasport events perceive the events' social benefits and how this perception influences their subjective well-being and support for parasport events. As Oshimi et al. (2021) indicated that summarizing the various factors simplifies the causal relationship between perceived social impacts and consumer attitudes, this study generalizes the numbers of social impact factors to examine the core facets of residents' perception after spectating parasport events directly.
Literature review
Theoretical background of social benefits perceived from non-mega-sporting events
The means-end chain theory was initially developed for relating consumers' product knowledge to their self-knowledge (Gutman, 1982) to understand consumer behavior. When individuals decide to purchase a specific product, they tend to view the product as a means to achieve some benefit by consuming that product (Gutman, 1982; Pieter et al., 1995). Thus, the means-end theory considers the following main points: (1) a product or service with tangible or intangible attributes, (2) consequences or benefits perceived by consumers when experiencing the product or service, and (3) perceived value of this product or service that is the ultimate goal (Kuo et al., 2019). This theory has been broadly applied in social cognition research in a variety of consumer contexts (Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 2000), since factual knowledge about product attributes is believed to be connected to ideas about psychological and social consequences and is associated with higher value (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). Therefore, the “means” are equivalent to services or products (e.g. the event), and the “ends” are values important to consumers (e.g. subjective well-being). Therefore, the means-end chain theory can be used to consider what sport consumers perceive when they engage in a particular activity or event and the significance of the attributes derived from meeting the benefits or consequences.
This theory was adapted to the local residents' context since sport products, including sporting events, are characterized as experiential products (Holt, 1995; Mason, 1999). According to Ouyang et al. (2019), when residents make decisions about their attitudinal and behavioral responses regarding the hosting of recurring events, they may see the event as a means to facilitate the achievement of their goal (“end”) of their overall perceived quality of life. In contrast, the positive and negative event impacts generated from the event would be the attributes and consequences of hosting recurring events. Ouyang et al. clarified that residents' direct experience with an event improves residents' confidence about their actual event evaluation, thus generating their concrete attitude.
Additionally, Taks et al. (2020) suggested changing the points of reference (other-referenced versus self-referenced) when measuring social impacts for sport events. However, they did not identify any theory to explain why self-referenced measures would underestimate reality than other-referenced measures. Previous literature using the means-end theory can thus provide some clues to identify new values associated with a specific organization (Long and Goldenberg, 2010).
Benefit perceived from spectating non-mega-sporting events
Studies that focused on non-mega-sporting events perceived increased social benefits in recent years. For example, Parra-Camacho et al. (2020) focused on residents who participated in a triathlon in Valencia, Spain, and explored three social impacts: social development and human capital, sport participation and city image, and economic development. Another study that conducted a questionnaire survey with spectators of Wuhan Marathon in China revealed that, social impacts had a significant positive impact on the quality of life and event support (Duan et al., 2020). Further, prior research discussed that social development and human capital allow residents to have a sense of well-being and have the opportunity to relate to new people as well as include disadvantaged groups and those at risk of social exclusion (Parra-Camacho et al., 2020).
Human capital has been employed in the context of mega-sporting events (Kaplanidou et al., 2019); however, its impacts are limited. This includes research considering human capital from the perspective of event hosts, such as employees of the Olympic Games Organization Committee or volunteers (Olberding and Olberding, 2014), but studies considering resident spectators' viewpoint are still lacking.
Moreover, sporting events, especially small- and medium-sized events, provide opportunities for residents to develop knowledge and skills and ensure personal growth (Taks, 2013). Nevertheless, most research on social impacts of non-mega-sporting events focused on cultural and social aspects.
Dwyer et al. (2000) argued that special events held in local communities provide residents opportunities to exchange ideas and serve as educational and training platforms. In the sport spectatorship context, education involves learning and explaining the quality of an experience (Çevik and Simsek Kerem, 2020), and intellectual experiences that residents could gain from supporting social causes (Girish and Lee, 2019). Here, learning refers to obtaining new knowledge and skills (Spreitzer et al., 2005), which is positively associated with spectators' subjective well-being (Flinchbaugh et al., 2015; Zhai et al., 2020). Moreover, spectators' experience quality is known to impact their future behavior, but research on sporting event spectators is currently limited (Wu and Ai, 2016; Wu and Cheng, 2018).
Additionally, Getz (1991) suggested that these events could enhance community members' understanding of different backgrounds, such as of people with disabilities. One previous study introduced the necessity to include cultural education into parasport (Cottingham et al., 2014); however, no study has mentioned the perception of parasport’ social impact, including its educational component. One study covered the benefits of local festivals using community benefits and cultural/educational benefits (Yolal et al., 2016). Community benefits refer to the positive impact on the community, such as on the community's image, which signals to others the unique and special characteristics of that community (Yolal et al., 2016). On the other hand, cultural/educational benefits refer to knowledge and new insights the residents could gain after participating in a unique event. Thus, community benefits are seen as corresponding to “we,” whereas individual benefits, such as cultural/educational benefits, correspond to “I”. This difference helps change the point of reference in Yolal's scale. Yolal et al. (2016) study revealed that festivals provided residents an opportunity to learn new things, and this experience can significantly enhance their sense of well-being. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
There is a significant positive effect of community benefits from spectating wheelchair basketball on resident spectators' subjective well-being.
There is a significant positive effect of cultural/educational benefits from spectating wheelchair basketball on resident spectators' subjective well-being.
Residents' subjective well-being and intention to support the event
Residents' well-being has been the focal point for local authorities and central governments during discussions on public policymaking. Evaluating the effects of sporting events is crucial because residents are key stakeholders of these events (Oshimi and Harada, 2019), and maintaining their support ensures the events' continued success (Duan et al., 2020; Theodorakis et al., 2015). Notably, although hosting an event is expected to enhance residents' subjective well-being and quality of life (Yolal et al., 2016), more research is needed on day-to-day effects on the local community (Duan et al., 2020).
Several studies revealed that leisure and events play a crucial role in enhancing individuals' quality of life. For example Sato et al. (2014) found that positive emotions derived from participating in a running event could improve quality of life. A recent study also revealed the relationship between perceived economic, psychological, environmental, and social impacts of sporting events and residents' quality of life and event support (Duan et al., 2020). Additionally, studies indicated that positive social impacts from such events tend to improve residents' quality of life and enhance event support (Kaplanidou et al., 2013; Karadakis and Kaplanidou, 2012). For example, one study found that local residents' quality of life significantly affected the international cycling context (Ma and Kaplanidou, 2017). Additional studies reported that residents' quality of life mediates the relationship between the perceived impacts of an event (Taks, 2013) and their support for that event (Kaplanidou et al., 2013). A recent study that applied the means-end theory reported that for residents of the Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon, a smaller-scale running event held annually in Hong Kong since 1997, perceptions of perceived benefits were significant predictors of their quality of life, which also mediates support toward the recurring event (Ouyang et al., 2019). As noted, residents are crucial players in hosting sporting events over a long term (Oshimi and Harada, 2019), and their support is key to the success of that event (Gursoy et al., 2017; Kaplanidou et al., 2013). However, most previous studies focused on residents who participate in the event as amateur athletes, and studies considering the perspective of resident spectators of such events remain scarce (Kim and James, 2019; Oh et al., 2020). To our knowledge, no study has reported that residents' subjective well-being will affect their support of parasport events. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
There is a significant positive effect of residents' subjective well-being on their support for a sporting event.
Moderating effects using socio-demographics
There is a need to review research related to parasport from a sport management perspective to create an inclusive sport society. At a glance, there are only a limited number of studies in the sport management context considering parasport (Misener et al., 2013; Shapiro and Pitts, 2014), and although cause-related spectator sport events can provide novel insights into the social impacts of sport events (Inoue et al., 2018), the literature on parasport remains scarce.
According to the International Paralympic Committee, parasporting events are held to present opportunities for social change, such as by enhancing sport participation for people with disabilities (Aitchinson, 2003; Brown and Pappous, 2020), enhancing awareness, changing attitudes positively and improving communication about disability in general (Cherney et al., 2015). Inoue et al. (2018) found that sport events can provide sport opportunities to people with disabilities and change residents' attitudes and understanding toward disability; however, little is known about how directly spectating parasporting events can improve residents' quality of life. Misener et al. (2015) introduced the critical disability theory, wherein if the social model of disability prejudice and exclusion in society were removed, people with disabilities might gain complete access to their communities. They also listed four areas related to disabilities that need to be enhanced: attitudes, social support, information in terms of using suitable formats or levels (e.g. simplicity of language) or coverage (e.g. explaining issues others may take for granted) and infrastructures that emphasize universal design principles (Misener et al., 2015). Attitudes reflect that people's notions should change more positively toward traits or behaviors of people with disabilities. Paradis et al. (2017) revealed how sporting events changed sport volunteers' attitudes toward disability in the context of Commonwealth Games and ParaPan American Games. Both games demonstrated a significant impact on attitudes from pre- to post-games. Their study contributed to expanding the insights on volunteers' perception of disability; however, little is known about positive attitudes toward positive behaviors and how these positive impacts change people's everyday lives, although their results need further support (Paradis et al., 2017).
Another study that developed a motivational scale for spectating disabled sport introduced two factors: inspiration and supercrip image as a unique parasport motivation (Cottingham et al., 2014). The supercrip image reflects the public's desire to deal with their prejudice and embrace people with disabilities. Here, inspiration is triggered by “superior individuals” (Lockwood and Kunda, 1997), such as athletes and superstars with disability. Further, efforts must be made to increase spectator attendance at parasporting events for these sport organizations to increase revenue and attract additional sponsorships. Byon et al. (2011) suggested that people with disabilities would themselves be instructive in understanding the role of disability in accounting for the sport consumption behaviors. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
The coefficients in the proposed conceptual model differ based of whether one has a family member or friend with disability or not.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is twofold: (1) identify the relationship between residents' perceived social benefits, subjective well-being, and continuous support of a sporting event and (2) identify the moderating effect of having a family member or friend with disability for each path coefficient. This study thus uses the means-end theory to determine what kind of social benefits will be delivered to residents by spectating parasport. Thus, its attempts to provide new insights into sporting event management (see Figure 1).
Methodology
Study context
The events of the 47th Japan Wheelchair Basketball Championship Emperor's Cup and Mitsubishi Electric World Cup Championship, both held in 2019, were selected to administer the questionnaire survey to their spectators. These two non-mega-parasporting events are held at the same venue in Tokyo every year, which has been classified as the venue for wheelchair basketball at the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games.
Measurement scale
The measurement scale used in this research has three sections: (1) the Social Benefit Scale (community and cultural/educational benefits comprising four items; Yolal et al., 2016), (2) subjective well-being (three items; Yolal et al., 2016) and (3) support for the event (three items; Ma and Kaplanidou, 2017). Since the original items are in English, the scale was translated into Japanese, and two native speakers checked the translation validity. All measurements were performed using a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In addition, respondents' demographic and socio-demographic information was queried: gender, age, marital status, family member or close friend with disability, and duration of residence in Tokyo.
Data collection
Questionnaires were distributed to spectators of two non-mega wheelchair basketball tournaments held in Tokyo. The sample was randomly drawn from the population based on convenience sampling method. Well-trained surveyors visited each seating location to estimate spectators' gender and age accurately. Of the 2,100 distributed questionnaires, 1,996 were returned (response rate of 95.0%); of these, 1,544 were rejected based on status of residence in Tokyo. Because this study focused on the perceived social benefits of Tokyo's residents, those who answered that they live outside of Tokyo were rejected for the data analysis. Thus, the final useable response rate was 22.6% (n = 452).
Data analysis
The data set of 452 was divided into two subsets – Sample A (n = 226) and Sample B (n = 226) – to check validity of the scale items and hypothesis model. The average age of participants was 46.49 years (standard deviation [SD] = 15.13), and the average duration of residence in Tokyo was 17.50 years (SD = 14.02). We conducted a chi-square test to compare the general characteristics of Samples A and B. The results showed no difference based on gender (χ2 = 0.01, p = 0.89), age (χ2 = 10.12, p = 0.12), marital status (χ2 = 0.12, p = 0.73), family member or friend with disability (χ2 = 0.92, p = 0.34) or residential status (χ2 = 8.18, p = 0.22). Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling (SEM), and multiple regression analysis. Both CFA and SEM involved maximum likelihood estimation. CFA was used to test the independence of three concepts – social benefits, subjective well-being and support for the event – using Sample A (n = 226) (see Table 1). Next, SEM and multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. The model fit criteria used in this study were as follows: comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.90; Hu and Bentler, 1999), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI ≥ 0.90; Hu and Bentler, 1999), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.10; Oshio, 2014), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.08, Hu and Bentler, 1999) and chi-square/df (χ2/df ≤ 5, Bollen, 1989). To test the convergent and discriminant validities of the scale, factor loadings (λ ≥ 0.40; Hair et al., 2010), average variance extracted (AVE ≥ 0.50; Hair et al., 2010) and construct reliability (CR ≥ 0.60; Hair et al., 2010) were used.
Results
CFA was performed to evaluate the measurement model using Sample A (n = 226). Factor loadings for all indicators were above the threshold, and all model fit indices reported an acceptable fit (χ2/df = 2.21, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.07). Next, the convergent validity and CR of the measurement scale were calculated. The AVEs for all factors ranged from 0.54 to 0.84, which were above the threshold, and CR varied from 0.81 to 0.94. Thus, convergent validity and CR were confirmed (see Table 2).
SEM was applied for hypothesis testing, which involved testing the relationship between two social benefits – subjective well-being and support for the event – using Sample B (n = 226). As presented in Figure 2, the model fit indices showed good fit with the sample (χ2/df = 2.58, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.08). The findings indicate significant positive effects of both community benefit (β = 0.36, p < 0.001) and cultural/educational benefit (β = 0.57, p < 0.001) on subjective well-being. The relationship between subjective well-being and support for the event was also positive (β = 0.84, p < 0.001), and this model explained 71% of the variance. Thus, H1, H2 and H3 were supported.
H4a and H4b were tested by calculating the interaction variables using multivariate regression analysis. Before hypothesis testing, each variable with multiple items was first averaged into a compound score. Multivariate regression analyses with a 95% CI for family member/friend with disability were conducted with two independent variables (i.e. community benefit and cultural/educational benefit), two moderating variables (i.e. community benefit × family member/friend with disability, cultural/educational benefit × family member/friend with disability) and a dependent variable (i.e. subjective well-being). Enter estimations for existence of a family member/friend with disability were conducted. The results showed a positive effect of both community benefit (βcommunity benefit = 0.30, p < 0.01) and cultural/educational benefit (βcultural/educational benefit = 0.50, p < 0.001) from subjective well-being. However, there was no moderating effect of having a family member or close friend with disability (βcommunity benefit = −0.31, p = 0.39; βcultural/educational = 0.39, p = 0.29, respectively). Hence, H4a and H4b were rejected. The regression model explained 58% of the variance of spectators' perceived subjective well-being. H4c was tested by calculating the interaction variables using multivariate regression analysis. Before testing the hypothesis, each variable with multiple items was first averaged into a compound score. Multivariate regression analyses with a 95% CI for family member/friend with disability were conducted with an independent variable (i.e. subjective well-being), one moderating variables (i.e. subjective well-being × family member/friend with disability) and a dependent variable (i.e. support for the event). Enter estimations for existence of a family member/friend with disability were conducted. The results showed a positive effect of subjective well-being (βsubjective well-being = 0.72, p < 0.001) on support for the event. There was no moderating effect of having a family member or close friend with disability (βsubjective well-being = −0.02, p = 0.67). Hence, H4c was rejected. The regression model explained 51% of the variance of the spectators' perceived subjective well-being (see Table 3).
Discussion
Researchers and practitioners are increasingly concerned about residents' perceived social benefits from non-mega-sporting events worldwide. This is because the benefits from these annually held non-mega-sporting events provide the local community with sustainable positive outcomes. However, most previous research focused on non-parasporting contexts, and the spectators' perspective was rarely considered. Further, although sport management includes parasport, there is lack of knowledge regarding these events, especially non-mega-parasporting events. This study thus aimed to address this research gap by revealing the influence of spectators' perceived social benefits, subjective well-being and support for the event.
Results of the SEM suggested that both community and cultural/educational benefits substantially impact residents' subjective well-being, indicating a strong influence on support for the event. Additionally, multivariate regression analyses showed that not having a close family member or friend with a disability, community benefits and cultural/educational benefits all significantly influenced subjective well-being, and, in turn, subjective well-being influenced support for the event. These results provide new insights from both theoretical and practical perspectives.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, it highlighted two social benefits: community and cultural/educational benefits perceived by residents of local communities who spectate non-mega-parasporting events in their communities.
Second, this study adopted a means-end theory to explain wheelchair basketball spectators' perceived social impacts, exploring how individuals choose products or services to fulfill their desires; this has a potential relationship with the consumer decision-making process. Previous research showed that perceived social impacts are estimated primarily when items are questioned using other-referenced rather than self-referenced measures; however, such research did not identify a theory to underpin this explanation (Taks et al., 2020). Therefore, this study adopted the means-end theory for wheelchair basketball spectators, and the cultural/educational value perceived from spectating wheelchair basketball is expected to be stronger than community benefits.
The results indicate that spectators of non-mega-parasporting events consider that they can perceive cultural/educational value when directly experiencing the atmosphere of an event. This also supports that self-referenced items, such as “I am exposed to a variety of cultural experiences throughout the wheelchair basketball event,” provide a more accurate and robust personal opinion about spectating an event. Moreover, spectators indicated that they acquire new knowledge (i.e. the “means” in the means-end theory) and become more inspired by elite athletes with disabilities than by participants who they cannot link to their daily lives. This indicates that learning from spectating special events, such as sport played by elite athletes with disabilities, can be an imperative aspect of human growth. By actually experiencing the event's atmosphere, spectators can improve their subjective well-being and be encouraged to support the event in the future, which is the goal – that is, the “end.”
Several prior studies found that sporting events, either mega or non-mega, deliver human capital as a social impact on those who are involved in the event (e.g. volunteers and employees; Olberding and Olberding, 2014; Kaplanidou et al., 2019); however, none suggested what resident parasport spectators gain from spectating such events. This study thus revealed an insight that athletes with disabilities can inspire resident parasport spectators to live more vitally. Cottingham et al. (2014) indicated that “inspiration” is a unique motivation in parasport. Inspiration is a psychological construct related to strong and positive emotions, such as enhancement, activation, arousal, and excitement that stimulate objects, persons or events (Thrash and Elliot, 2003). Inspiration was thus inserted into Cottingham et al. (2014) scale for measuring the motivation in the parasport context, indicating that inspiration can stimulate superior individuals, such as athletes and superstars (Schantz and Gilbert, 2001). Inspiration plays a vital role in motivating people to participate in sport (Zhou et al., 2018). Several studies revealed that active participants in charity running events were inspired by cancer survivors they ran with (Filo et al., 2009). In sporting events, role models, such as elite athletes, are essential means to inspire people and increase sport participation; this is referred to as the “demonstration effect,” which was commonly observed in significant sporting events (Weed et al., 2015). These findings suggest that residents who watched athletes with disabilities play basketball were inspired, which elevated their level of positive affect, characterized as energetic feelings. Additionally, this study contributed by showing that non-mega-sporting events also play a role in inspiring spectators.
Third, the perceived social impacts, primarily the cultural/educational benefit, significantly affected residents' subjective well-being. As indicated in the literature review, studies that revealed sporting events' role in enhancing people's well-being mainly focused on residents who participate in the event as actual amateur athletes, and research considering the perspective of residents as spectators is rare (Kim and James, 2019; Oh et al., 2020). This study thus focused on how residents' perceived social impacts influence their subjective well-being. As a result, residents are more satisfied with their decision to spectate since they gain new knowledge and ideas by spectating parasporting events. As stated in the previous literature, residents are crucial for hosting sporting events in the long term (Oshimi and Harada, 2019). Many countries recognize this when making public policies to support and invest in arts, culture, and sport (e.g. UK government invested £400m in Sport England), since learning benefits generated through engagement with these leisure activities increase the public's subjective well-being (Wheatley and Bickerton, 2017). The results support that parasporting events have a critical impact on residents' subjective well-being, enhancing their intention to support the events continuously.
Finally, several previous studies mentioned that parasport events are uniquely positioned to tap into new and existing resources to create enduring infrastructural and social legacies for the local people with disabilities (Misener et al., 2013). However, this study revealed that non-mega-parasport deliver benefits to people with disabilities that trickle down to those who do not have disabilities. Non-mega-parasporting events also help people who are not familiar with disabilities to change their attitudes, which will lead to future behavioral changes. According to Paradis et al. (2017), attitudes are developed through social and educational experiences, and it is expected that sporting events can shape attitudes; however, there is inadequate knowledge of how these perceived attitudes impact people's behaviors and change their everyday lives. This study suggests that spectators with and without disabilities have the chance to improve their attitudes and create an inclusive society by hosting non-mega-parasporting events.
Practical implications
The findings have several implications for sport event managers and the public policy sector. First, our results provide evidence that non-mega-parasporting events have educational value for spectators. After the United Nations (n.d.) identified the need for a cohesive society, the Japanese government initiated several policies to realize this goal. This study further supports the notion that non-mega-parasporting events can be used as actual teaching material for this purpose. For example, elementary schoolchildren can learn and become inspired by the sporting event itself. Parasporting event managers can thus collaborate with local education committees to elevate the status of their events and raise next-generation, highly diversity-minded leaders from the local area. In addition, having children watch an experience-based activity (e.g. interactive wheelchair basketball) will increase their interest in and understanding of the experience of people with disabilities such as of riding the wheelchair. Promoting the idea that parasport can have an educational impact can even change the type of sponsors. For example, more sponsors from the education sector dedicated to educational and public properties can become interested in sponsoring parasporting events.
Second, parasporting events create benefits for spectators who do not have disabilities, as athletes with disabilities can inspire these spectators. For example, panels that introduce athletes' information, such as how and when they got their symptoms, could increase spectators' attachment toward the athletes. Although most spectators of parasporting events do not have disabilities, athletes with disabilities could be role models for them in numerous ways.
Third, it is practical to evaluate the residents' perception toward spectating competitions between athletes with disabilities. Residents are key stakeholders of such events, and maintaining their well-being and support is crucial for local authorities when creating public policies. Thus, when renewing the shared goals, it is critical to consider residents' attitudes toward non-mega-sporting events, especially parasporting events, so as to create an inclusive society through sport.
Limitations and future studies
This study has some limitations. First, the social benefits should also be compared between non-mega non-parasporting events held at the same venue. Then, we could emphasize that non-mega-parasporting events have educational impacts on the local community. A longitudinal study is thus necessary for future studies to determine whether the given benefits foster a legacy for the community. This is also critical since the current study applied the convenience sampling method which possibly biased in choosing the subjects of the study, indicates not necessarily generalizable to the population (Etikan et al., 2016). Additionally, it is critical to determine whether spectating the game improves the spectators' subjective well-being. To further understand parasporting events, numerous psychological variables should be tested to enable a prosperous parasport industry. Moreover, adopting new theoretical backgrounds could shed light on parasporting event contexts, such as on evaluating event experience quality.
In conclusion, we demonstrated how non-mega-parasporting events positively impact local residents as spectators. Future scholars should focus more on parasporting events to grow the sport industry. There could be more social benefits driven by parasport, which are still unknown.
Figures
Figure 1
Hypotheses model
Figure 2
Results of testing the hypotheses model
Demographics and additional information
| Chi-square test | Total sample | Sample A | Sample B | Chi square | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 199 | 100 | 99 | 0.01 | 0.89 |
| Female | 252 | 125 | 127 | ||
| Age | |||||
| Average | 46.49 (15.13) | 46.21 (15.22) | 46.77 (15.07) | – | – |
| 10s | 16 | 8 | 8 | 10.12 | 0.12 |
| 20s | 34 | 17 | 17 | ||
| 30s | 85 | 49 | 36 | ||
| 40s | 138 | 67 | 71 | ||
| 50s | 86 | 36 | 50 | ||
| 60s | 46 | 29 | 17 | ||
| Over 70s | 31 | 11 | 20 | ||
| Marital status | |||||
| Single | 104 | 50 | 54 | 0.12 | 0.73 |
| Married | 344 | 172 | 172 | ||
| Disabled family or friends | |||||
| No | 325 | 167 | 158 | 0.92 | 0.34 |
| Yes | 121 | 56 | 65 | ||
| Residential years | |||||
| Average | 17.50 (14.02) | 15.83 (12.68) | 19.14 (15.10) | 8.18 | 0.22 |
| First year | 17 | 7 | 10 | ||
| 2–5 years | 65 | 38 | 27 | ||
| 6–10 years | 86 | 49 | 37 | ||
| 11–15 years | 67 | 31 | 36 | ||
| 16–20 years | 49 | 25 | 24 | ||
| 21–30 years | 54 | 26 | 28 | ||
| More than 30 years | 70 | 27 | 43 | ||
Note(s): Parenthesis SD
Descriptive statistics of each scale
| Items | λ | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community benefits | |||
| 1. The wheelchair basketball event enhances the image of the community | 0.87 | 0.54 | 0.82 |
| 2. The wheelchair basketball event helps me to show others why my community is unique and special | 0.83 | ||
| 3. The wheelchair basketball event contributes to my personal well-being | 0.73 | ||
| 4. Assisting in organizing the wheelchair basketball event helps to build leaders within my community | 0.42 | ||
| Cultural/educational benefits | |||
| 5. Local residents who participate in the wheelchair basketball event have the opportunity to learn new things | 0.81 | 0.55 | 0.83 |
| 6. The wheelchair basketball event acts as a showcase for new ideas | 0.68 | ||
| 7. I am exposed to a variety of cultural experiences throughout the wheelchair basketball event | 0.82 | ||
| 8. I enjoy meeting the wheelchair basketball event players and staffs | 0.63 | ||
| Subjective well-being | |||
| 9. All in all, I feel this sporting event has enriched my life | 0.86 | 0.59 | 0.81 |
| 10. On this wheelchair basketball event, I accomplished my purpose of this experience | 0.73 | ||
| 11. This sporting event was rewarding to me in many ways | 0.72 | ||
| Support for the event | |||
| 12. I Support the hosing of the wheelchair basketball event in the local area | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.94 |
| 13. I would like my city to bid for a major sporting event in the future | 0.96 | ||
| 14. I will attend future events taking place in the local area | 0.86 | ||
| χ2 (df) | 134.623 (61) | ||
| χ2/(df) | 2.21 | ||
| CFI | 0.97 | ||
| TLI | 0.97 | ||
| SRMR | 0.04 | ||
| RMSEA (90% CI) | 0.073 (0.057–0.090) | ||
Note(s): Maximum likelihood estimation
Results of multivariate regression analysis testing H4a to H4c
| Dependent variable: subjective well-being | β | t | p | Adj R2 | Hypotheses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | – | 6.33 | *** | – | – |
| Community benefit (CB) | 0.30 | 3.41 | ** | 0.58 | – |
| Cultural/Educational benefit (CEB) | 0.50 | 5.90 | *** | ||
| CB × family member/friend with disability (1: Yes) | −0.31 | 0.86 | n.s. | H4a: Reject | |
| CEB × family member/friend with disability (1: Yes) | 0.39 | 1.07 | n.s. | H4b: Reject | |
| Dependent variable: Support to event | |||||
| Constant | – | 9.32 | *** | – | – |
| Subjective well-being (SWB) | 0.72 | 15.02 | *** | 0.51 | – |
| SWB × family member/friend with disability (1: Yes) | −0.02 | −0.43 | n.s. | H4c: Reject | |
Note(s): Enter method, ***p < 0.001; *p < 0.01, n.s. = not significant
References
Aitchison, C. (2003), “From leisure and disability to disability leisure: developing data, definitions and discourses”, Disability and Society, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 955-969.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dabholkar, P.A. (2000), “Discursive psychology: an alternative conceptual foundation to means-end chain theory”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 535-586.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), “A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 303-316.
Brown, C. and Pappous, A. (2020), “Are mega-events a solution to address physical inactivity? Interrogating the London 2012 Paralympic sport participation legacies among people with disabilities”, European Journal for Sport and Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 18-43.
Byon, K.K., Carroll, M.S., Cottingham, M., Grady, J. and Allen, J.T. (2011), “Examining gender differences in the effect of spectator motivation on sport consumption behaviors at collegiate wheelchair basketball games”, Journal of Venue and Entertainment Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 12-27.
Çevik, H. and Simsek Kerem, Y. (2020), “The effect of event experience quality on the satisfaction and behavioral intentions of motocross World Championship spectators”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 389-408.
Cherney, J.L., Lindemann, K. and Hardin, M. (2015), “Research in communication, disability, and sport”, Communication and Sport, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 8-26.
Cottingham, M., Carroll, M.S., Phillips, D., Karadakis, K., Gearity, B.T. and Drane, D. (2014), “Development and validation of the motivation scale for disability sport consumption”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Dashper, K. and Fletcher, T. (2013), “Introduction: diversity, equity and inclusion in sport and leisure”, Sport in Society, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 1227-1232.
Duan, Y., Mastromartino, B., Zhang, J.J. and Liu, B. (2020), “How do perceptions of non-mega sport events impact quality of life and support for the event among local residents?”, Sport in Society, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 1841-1860.
Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Mistilis, N. and Mules, T. (2000), “A framework for evaluating and forecasting the impacts of special events”, Proceedings of Event Evaluation, Research and Education, Sydney, pp. 31-45.
Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. and Alkassim, R.S. (2016), “Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling”, American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Filo, K., Funk, D.C. and O'Brien, D. (2009), “The meaning behind attachment: exploring camaraderie, cause, and competency at a charity sport event”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 361-387.
Flinchbaugh, C., Luth, M.T. and Li, P. (2015), “A challenge or a hindrance? Understanding the effects of stressors and thriving on life satisfaction”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 323-345.
Fredline, E. (2005), “Host and guest relations and sport tourism”, Sport in Society, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 263-279.
Getz, D. (1991), Festivals, Special Events, and Tourism, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Gibson, H.J., Kaplanidou, K. and Kang, S.J. (2012), “Small-scale event sport tourism: a case study in sustainable tourism”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 160-170.
Girish, V.G. and Lee, C.K. (2019), “The relationships of brand experience, sports event image and loyalty: case of Jeju International Ultramarathon Race”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 567-582.
Gursoy, D., Milito, M.C. and Nunkoo, R. (2017), “Residents' support for a mega-event: the case of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Natal, Brazil”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 344-352.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-72.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson Prentice Hall, Hoboken.
Hautbois, C., Djaballah, M. and Desbordes, M. (2020), “The social impact of participative sporting events: a cluster analysis of marathon participants based on perceived benefits”, Sport in Society, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 335-353.
Holt, D.B. (1995), “How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Huang, H., Min, S.D., Wang, T.S.R. and Mao, L.L. (2016), “Social exchange process in collectivistic countries: an examination of sporting events in China”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 172-189.
Inoue, Y., Heffernan, C., Yamaguchi, T. and Filo, K. (2018), “Social and charitable impacts of a charity-affiliated sport event: a mixed methods study”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 202-218.
Kaplanidou, K.(K. (2021), “Sport events and community development: resident considerations and community goals”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 53-66.
Kaplanidou, K., Karadakis, K., Gibson, H., Thapa, B., Walker, M., Geldenhuys, S. and Coetzee, W. (2013), “Quality of life, event impacts, and mega-event support among South African residents before and after the 2010 FIFA World Cup”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 631-645.
Kaplanidou, K., Giannoulakis, C., Odio, M. and Chalip, L. (2019), “Types of human capital as a legacy from Olympic Games hosting”, Journal of Global Sport Management. doi: 10.1080/24704067.2019.1674180.
Karadakis, K. and Kaplanidou, K. (2012), “Legacy perceptions among host and non-host Olympic Games residents: a longitudinal study of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 243-264.
Kelly, D.M. and Fairley, S. (2018), “What about the event? How do tourism leveraging strategies affect small-scale events?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 64, pp. 335-345.
Kim, J. and James, J.D. (2019), “Sport and happiness: understanding the relations among sport consumption activities, long- and short-term subjective well-being, and psychological need fulfillment”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 119-132.
Kim, W. and Walker, M. (2012), “Measuring the social impacts associated with Super Bowl XLIII: preliminary development of a psychic income scale”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 91-108.
Kim, W., Jun, H.M., Walker, M. and Drane, D. (2015), “Evaluating the perceived social impacts of hosting large-scale sport tourism events: SCALE development and validation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Kuo, C.M., Chen, L.H. and Liu, C.H. (2019), “Is it all about religious faith? Exploring the value of contemporary pilgrimage among senior travelers”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 379-392.
Liu, D., Broom, D. and Wilson, R. (2014), “Legacy of the Beijing Olympic games: a non-host city perspective”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 485-502.
Lockwood, P. and Kunda, Z. (1997), “Superstars and me: predicting the impact of role models on the self”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 91-103.
Long, B. and Goldenberg, M. (2010), “A means-end analysis of Special Olympics volunteers”, Leisure/Loisir, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 145-167.
Ma, S.C. and Kaplanidou, K. (2017), “Legacy perceptions among host Tour de Taiwan residents: the mediating effect of quality of life”, Leisure Studies, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 423-437.
Ma, S.C., Egan, D., Rotherham, I. and Ma, S.M. (2011), “A framework for monitoring during the planning stage for a sports mega-event”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 79-96.
Ma, S.C., Ma, S.M., Wu, J.H. and Rotherham, I.D. (2013), “Host residents' perception changes on major sport events”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 511-536.
Mao, L. and Huang, H. (2016), “Social impact of Formula One Chinese Grand Prix: a comparison of local residents' perceptions based on the intrinsic dimension”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 306-318.
Mason, D.S. (1999), “What is the sports product and who buys it? The marketing of professional sports leagues”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4, pp. 402-419.
Misener, L., Darcy, S., Legg, D. and Gilbert, K. (2013), “Beyond Olympic legacy: understanding Paralympic legacy through a thematic analysis”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 329-341.
Misener, L., McGillivray, D., McPherson, G. and Legg, D. (2015), “Leveraging parasport events for sustainable community participation: the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games”, Annals of Leisure Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 450-469.
Oh, T., Kang, J.H. and Kwon, K. (2020), “Is there the relationship between spectator sports consumption and life satisfaction?”, Managing Sport and Leisure.
Olberding, J.C. and Olberding, D.J. (2014), “The social impacts of a special event on the host city: a conceptual framework and a case study of the Cincinnati Flying Pig Marathon”, International Journal of Hospitality and Event Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 44-61.
Oshimi, D. and Harada, M. (2019), “Host residents' role in sporting events: the city image perspective”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 263-275.
Oshimi, D., Yamaguchi, S., Fukuhara, T. and Taks, M. (2021), “Expected and experienced social impact of host residents during Rugby World Cup 2019: a panel data approach social impact of sporting events”, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 628153.
Oshio, A. (2014), Hajimete no Kyobunsankozo Bunseki Amos ni your Pasu Kaiseki, (in Japanese).
Ouyang, Z., Gursoy, D. and Chen, K.C. (2019), “It's all about life: exploring the role of residents' quality of life perceptions on attitudes toward a recurring hallmark event over time”, Tourism Management, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 99-111.
Paradis, K.F., Misener, L.J., McPherson, G., McGillivray, D. and Legg, D. (2017), “Examining the impact of integrated and non-integrated parasport events on volunteer attitudes towards disability”, Sport in Society, Vol. 20 No. 11, pp. 1724-1744.
Parra-Camacho, D., González-García, R.J. and Alonso-Dos-Santos, M. (2020), “Social impact of a participative small-scale sporting event”, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 109-124.
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H. and Allen, D. (1995), “A means-end chain approach to consumer goal structures”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 227-244.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988), “Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 11-31.
Ritchie, J.R. (1984), “Assessing the impact of hallmark events: conceptual and research issues”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-11.
Sato, M., Jordan, J.S. and Funk, D.C. (2014), “The role of physically active leisure for enhancing quality of life”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 293-313.
Schantz, O.J. and Gilbert, K. (2001), “An ideal misconstrued: newspaper coverage of the Atlanta paralympic games in France and Germany”, Sociology of Sport Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1.
Shapiro, D.R. and Pitts, B.G. (2014), “What little do we know: content analysis of disability sport in sport management literature”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 657-671.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S. and Grant, A.M. (2005), “A socially embedded model of thriving at work”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 537-549.
Taks, M. (2013), “Social sustainability of non-mega sport events in a global world”, European Journal for Sport and Society, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 121-141.
Taks, M., Green, B.C., Misener, L. and Chalip, L. (2014), “Evaluating sport development outcomes: the case of a medium-sized international sport event”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 213-237.
Taks, M., Chalip, L. and Green, B.C. (2015), “Impacts and strategic outcomes from non-mega sport events for local communities”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Taks, M., Oshimi, D. and Agha, N. (2020), “Other- versus self-referenced social impacts of events: validating a new scale”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Theodorakis, N.D., Kaplanidou, K. and Karabaxoglou, I. (2015), “Effect of event service quality and satisfaction on happiness among runners of a recurring sport event”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 87-107.
Thrash, T.M. and Elliot, A.J. (2003), “Inspiration as a psychological construct”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 871-889.
United Nations (n.d), “Perspectives on social cohesion – the glue that holds society together”, available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/policy/perspectives-on-social-cohesion.html.
Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L. and Dowse, S. (2015), “The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 195-226.
Wheatley, D. and Bickerton, C. (2017), “Subjective well-being and engagement in arts, culture and sport”, Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 23-45.
Wu, H.C. and Ai, C.H. (2016), “Synthesizing the effects of experiential quality, excitement, equity, experiential satisfaction on experiential loyalty for the golf industry: the case of Hainan Island”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 41-59.
Wu, H.C. and Cheng, C.C. (2018), “What drives spectators' experiential loyalty? A case study of the Olympic Football Tournament Rio 2016”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 837-866.
Yamashita, R. (2021), “Mega-para-sporting event social impacts perceived by Tokyo residents: comparison of residents' vitality”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 16, p. 9311.
Yolal, M., Gursoy, D., Uysal, M., Kim, H.L. and Karacaoğlu, S. (2016), “Impacts of festivals and events on residents' well-being”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 61, pp. 1-18.
Zafirovski, M. (2005), “Social exchange theory under scrutiny: a positive critique of its economic-behaviorist formulations”, Electronic Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-40.
Zhai, Q., Wang, S. and Weadon, H. (2020), “Thriving at work as a mediator of the relationship between workplace support and life satisfaction”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 168-184.
Zhou, R., Kaplanidou, K., Papadimitriou, D., Theodorakis, N.D. and Alexandris, K. (2018), “Understanding the inspiration among active participants in sport events”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 332-348.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the associate editor for their support and anonymous reviewers for constructive feedbacks. The authors also sincerely appreciate for Japan Wheelchair Basketball Federation and the undergraduate students for their help in data collection.
Funding: This research was supported by The Nippon Foundation Paralympic Support Center.