1. The sport industry has a substantial environmental footprint, with the average annual carbon footprint of an active sport participant estimated to be 844 kg of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Previous literature reviews on environmental sustainability in sport have had limitations in scope and assessment processes, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the field.
3. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge on environmental sustainability in sport, identify bibliographic and methodological patterns, and discuss directions for future research.
The article titled "Environmental sustainability in sport: a systematic literature review" provides an overview of the existing literature on environmental sustainability in the sports industry. While the article presents valuable information and insights, there are some potential biases and limitations that need to be considered.
One potential bias is the focus on environmental sustainability in sport without considering other aspects of sustainability, such as social and economic sustainability. The article primarily focuses on the environmental footprint of the sports industry and does not explore the broader implications of sustainability in sport. This narrow focus may limit the understanding of the overall impact of sport on society.
Another potential bias is the emphasis on the lack of action by sport organizations to improve their environmental performance. While it is important to address this issue, it is also essential to acknowledge any efforts made by these organizations towards sustainability. The article does not provide a balanced view of both positive and negative actions taken by sport organizations.
The article also lacks evidence for some of its claims. For example, it states that limited action by sport organizations could compromise the industry's long-term development and contribute to adverse impacts on climate change. However, no specific examples or studies are provided to support these claims. Without supporting evidence, these claims may be seen as unsupported assertions.
Additionally, there is a lack of exploration of counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The article primarily focuses on highlighting gaps in knowledge and areas for future research without considering opposing viewpoints or critiques of current approaches to environmental sustainability in sport. This one-sided reporting limits the depth and breadth of analysis presented in the article.
Furthermore, there is a potential promotional tone throughout the article. The authors repeatedly emphasize the importance of addressing environmental issues in sport and suggest that their review can inform effective environmental responses and sustainability transitions. While it is important to promote sustainable practices, this promotional tone may undermine objectivity and critical analysis.
Lastly, while potential risks are mentioned briefly (e.g., adverse impacts on climate change), they are not thoroughly explored or discussed in detail. The article does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the potential risks and challenges associated with environmental sustainability in sport, which limits the understanding of the complexities involved.
In conclusion, while the article provides valuable insights into the literature on environmental sustainability in sport, it has some potential biases and limitations that need to be considered. These include a narrow focus on environmental sustainability, a lack of evidence for claims made, one-sided reporting, a promotional tone, and a lack of exploration of counterarguments. A more balanced and comprehensive analysis would enhance the credibility and depth of the article.