An Analysis of Congestion During Running Events from The Perspective of Runners: Prevalence, Impact on Safety And Satisfaction, and Preferred Controls

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the views of runners regarding their experiences with congestion during running events, including its prevalence, its impact on their safety and satisfaction, and their preferred controls to mitigate congestion. Runners (n = 222) with varied experience participating in running events (1-5+ years, 5-km races to Ultramarathons, and a mixture of road, trail, and cross-country events) completed an electronic survey. The survey was developed to assess the characteristics of respondents, whether they have experienced congestion during running events, the impact of congestion they have experienced during running events on their safety and satisfaction, and their preferred controls for congestion during running events. Survey data indicated runners had experienced some form of congestion prior to the race in the start corrals (93% of respondents), as the race started (97% of respondents), and during the race while running (88% of respondents). In turn, 73% of respondents indicated their experiences with congestion somewhat to extremely (i.e., rating of at least 3 on a 5-point Likert scale) negatively impacted their satisfaction with an event, while 43% of respondents indicated congestion somewhat to extremely negatively impacted their safety during an event. Regarding the impact of congestion on runner safety, 38% of respondents indicated they had slipped, while 27% of respondents indicated they had fallen during running events due to congestion. Further, congestion was attributed to injuries sustained (9%) and not finishing a race due to sustaining an injury (5%) during running events in some respondents. Respondents identified seeding runners based on previous run times (91%), use of wave starts (91%), and designing courses with limited pinch points, U-turns, and narrow paths (89%) as their most preferred controls to mitigate congestion during running events. Respondents resoundingly indicated self-seeding is not an effective method of managing congestion during running events. This study provides novel evidence that congestion is an issue for runners during running events, subsequently diminishing their satisfaction with events and posing safety concerns. In this way, race directors should involve runners in their decision-making processes when implementing appropriate controls to combat congestion for minimising injury risk to runners and ensuring a viable participant base remains attracted to their events in the future.

Implementation of Congestion-Related Controls Improves Runner Density, Flow Rate, Perceived Safety, and Satisfaction during an Australian Running Event

“…In this regard, survey data provided from 35 race directors with experience coordinating large running events in Australia indicated that almost half of the respondents (43%) had received feedback from runners related to congestion during their events, with this feedback mostly related to the impacts of congestion on runner satisfaction (94%) and safety (62%) [4]. Likewise, survey data from 222 runners who have participated in running events indicated most of them had experienced congestion when waiting for race commencement (93%), as the race commenced (97%), and on-course during the race (88%), with their experiences encountering congestion "somewhat" to "extremely" impacting (i.e., rating of at least 3 on a 5-point Likert item) their satisfaction (73%) and safety (43%) during the event [5]. In turn, many of the surveyed runners indicated they had tripped or slipped at the beginning of a race (38%), fell while running (27%), or required medical treatment (9%) due to congestion at running events [5], emphasizing participant congestion can lead to incidents and injuries of a concerning nature to race directors and runners alike.…”

“…Likewise, survey data from 222 runners who have participated in running events indicated most of them had experienced congestion when waiting for race commencement (93%), as the race commenced (97%), and on-course during the race (88%), with their experiences encountering congestion "somewhat" to "extremely" impacting (i.e., rating of at least 3 on a 5-point Likert item) their satisfaction (73%) and safety (43%) during the event [5]. In turn, many of the surveyed runners indicated they had tripped or slipped at the beginning of a race (38%), fell while running (27%), or required medical treatment (9%) due to congestion at running events [5], emphasizing participant congestion can lead to incidents and injuries of a concerning nature to race directors and runners alike. Furthermore, reduced participant satisfaction with a running event may negatively impact the reputation of the event among prospective consumers, which can jeopardize the financial viability of the event [5].…”

“…In turn, many of the surveyed runners indicated they had tripped or slipped at the beginning of a race (38%), fell while running (27%), or required medical treatment (9%) due to congestion at running events [5], emphasizing participant congestion can lead to incidents and injuries of a concerning nature to race directors and runners alike. Furthermore, reduced participant satisfaction with a running event may negatively impact the reputation of the event among prospective consumers, which can jeopardize the financial viability of the event [5]. While race directors and runners have indicated congestion is a concern during running events, no data have been provided that precisely quantifies the congestion levels experienced by runners during large running events.…”

“…Although useful, Bain and Bartlo did not quantify the flow rate of runners in their investigation, nor did they provide congestion data as the race commenced. In this way, it is essential to quantify runner density and flow rate as the race commences, given this point is where runners mostly experience congestion and are exposed to the greatest crowd risk during running events [5]. Consequently, data describing the congestion experienced by participants during running events is currently lacking in the literature, making it unfeasible to identify the precise risk imposed on runners in these settings.…”

“…More precisely, race directors indicated a preference to use wave starts (52%), limit the number of runners permitted to participate (43%), and change the course or start corral design (35%) as controls during the running events they have organized [4]. Similarly, a high proportion of the 222 runners surveyed in a separate study identified that seeding runners based on previous run times (91%), using wave starts (91%), and optimizing course design (89%) were effective ways to reduce congestion during running events [5]. Although the preferred controls to combat congestion during running events have been identified from race director [4] and runner [5] perspectives, the impacts of implementing suitable controls on runner congestion during running events have not been directly examined.…”