Groundbreaking New Evidence suggests that some recreational areas in the UK may have a major flaw.
In an effort to make public sports more accessible, tests have been conducted where city officials introduced free to use basketballs, at basketball courts. The idea is simple: encourage participation by ensuring the essential equipment is always available.
In a study that defies all expectations, researchers from the University of Nottingham’s Innovation Lab, Northumbria University’s Computer Science Department, and the University of Illinois Urbana’s Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department spent three afternoons uncovering a startling revelation: basketball courts with basketballs are used much more than those without.
The researchers meticulously documented how street goers seemed oddly more motivated when they didn’t have to plan, own, purchase, store, or carry their own basketball. It was as if simply seeing a basketball enticed passersby to step onto the court, even without planning to play.
The research has already sparked interest in other countries, where pilot projects have emerged on public volleyball courts and football pitches alike. Olga, an unintentional pilot participant, found herself and her granddaughter unexpectedly drawn into one such project. “We were just walking home from school,” Olga recalled, “and there was a ball on the court. If someone had told me we’d be playing basketball 30 seconds before, I’m not sure…” She continued, “The whole experience was over so quickly, but it was good fun!”
In another pilot project, one park placed pétanque sets at pétanque courts, leading to a several thousand percent increase in usage. Officials remain cautiously optimistic, though. “Data can always be wrong,” one noted. “We’ll need to wait a few more years to see the true, long-term impact.”
When asked if these findings might have broader implications, such as boosting inclusivity or fostering more sustainable consumption, Agha was skeptical. “If the council placed a new basketball court in a neighbourhood of 5,000 homes and included one or two balls to share on the court available for everyone using it, I suspect we’d still see a willingness for each of those households to own their own basketball,” he explained. “Given that people often play basketball in their living rooms, and the abundance of storage space and disposable income enjoyed by most people in the city, it’s unlikely to impact individual household spending priorities significantly.”
Shuja Agha elaborated how the possible implications extend beyond basketball. “It raises so many questions. If people prefer playing basketball when a ball is available, could outdoor tennis courts also attract a wider range of people if rackets were provided? It’s a wild idea, but it could reshape how we think about inclusivity and accessibility at public recreational spaces. That said, since most, if not all, people living in cities are tennis pros with their own rackets, this seems a bit more unlikely.”
Other sports have met the concept with similar mixed skepticism. Patricia, Chief of Operations for Play Together Now, which operates twenty-nine football pitches in Manchester, was asked if they would consider providing footballs and bibs at their grounds. Her response was simple: “I don’t see how it would help our users, it is simply unintuitive. We only provide the grounds, people bring so many footballs anyway. Also people forget and lose their balls here so we actually have an abundance of footballs, but” she adds “I can see how it might add value at other places.”
Though further research is needed to establish the precise connection or the greater implications with this accessibility, the current findings suggest that it still might be room for improvement as public recreational spaces in the UK are shifting towards inclusive, adaptable, multi-use environments.
The people behind this research are Shuja Agha from the University of Illinois Urbana, William Nimbs from the University of Nottingham, and Adeoluwa Ayangade from Northumbria University.
