parkrun

An Organised Running Revolution

David Hindley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9781000589832
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Sociology

This is the first book to take an in-depth look at parkrun - the free, weekly, timed 5km run on a Saturday morning - and to examine why its participants love it so much and why it has been such an astonishing success.

Author David Hindley – a self-described 'middle of the pack' parkrunner – draws on new research, including interviews with other runners, volunteers and organisers, to shine a light on the unique combination of ingredients in parkrun's magic formula. Tracing the development of parkrun from its first event in the UK in 2004 to the global network of today, he takes a close look at themes like inclusion, volunteering, community, green space, health and well-being, and unpacks the mantra of 'it's a run not a race' that has come to define the spirit of parkrun for so many of its participants. Part sporting event, part social movement, and part public health intervention, parkrun perhaps offers a model for sustainable public participation in other areas of social life.

This book is compulsory behind-the-scenes reading for all parkrunners and parkrun volunteers, and anybody working in sport development, events, recreation, public health, volunteering or community organising.

Chapter 1 Introduction The Rise of parkrun

DOI: 10.4324/9781003121961-1

parkrun (small p, one word) is a series of free, weekly, mass physical activity community events, delivered by a network of local volunteers and convened in public spaces, including municipal parks and green environments. That parkrun events are organised and orchestrated exclusively by volunteers is one of the components that differentiate parkrun from many other mass participation community events. Many of the volunteers are also parkrunners themselves, switching roles from week to week contingent on availability and local needs. I hesitate to label parkrun a running event as, although this may be how many participants associate the collective, timed 5 km (3.1 mile) activity, such a description belies its distinctiveness. In contrast to traditional running events, parkrun does not present itself as a race, nor would it be accurate to categorise all participants as runners. Indeed, there are no expectations that partakers are fast or slow, favouring an emphasis on individuals completing the distance in a time and at a pace that is comfortable for them. As such parkrun has a broad target audience, eager to encourage the participation of those who are sedentary and inactive, target cohorts for numerous public health interventions.

In some ways the name ‘parkrun’ could be construed as misleading. In an interview, parkrun’s Global Chief Executive Officer, Nick Pearson, preferred a more nuanced depiction of parkrun as ‘a social intervention masquerading as a running event.’¹ The social side of parkrun can be recognised in the way aspects of each event provide affordances for social interactions, where even fleeting encounters with strangers – a greeting, smile, or very brief conversation – can help serve basic needs, such as feeling connected and appreciated (Van Lange & Columbus, 2021). As I have written elsewhere, ‘parkrun acts as a temporary public space that is conducive for incidental and casual social interaction’ (Hindley, 2020, p. 94). Such a portrayal underscores the sociality of parkrun, which operates as what the sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1999) described as ‘third places,’ spaces where people are welcome to congregate and socially interact. By their nature, third places have the potential to act as levellers, cultivating a space which is inclusive, free of any set formal criteria of membership and exclusion. It is asserted that third places provide an important function to the community in that they are accessible, convenient, and local, whereas the character of a third place is determined by its ‘regulars’ whose incidental interactions help to create a playful ambiance and foster a desire to return to recapture the experience (Oldenburg, 1999).

Indeed, there is growing evidence that non-elite mass participation sport events are recognised as having the potential to foster a sense of belonging and ‘togetherness’ in host communities (Meir & Fletcher, 2019). At the participant level, sport events are similarly acknowledged to provide opportunities for the development of social capital through the building of trust, reciprocity, and networks and, thus, may contribute to individual and community wellbeing (Son et al., 2010; Zhou & Kaplanidou, 2018). On the surface, the notion of social capital encourages us to consider the social connectedness of individuals within a wider community, and as Nicholson and Hoye (2008, p. 3) contend, ‘there is an inherent logic in the idea that the more connections individuals make within their communities the better off they will be emotionally, socially, physically, and economically.’ Event research is also beginning to recognise their potential for promoting temporary social connections, conviviality, and camaraderie within the event space, creating meaningful social impact for participants (Hindley, 2020; Lee et al., 2016). In a paper exploring the social capital potential of open water swimming events, authors Greenwood and Fletcher (2020) argue that such events can facilitate casual social interactions, however evidence of bridging capital was less convincing. The testimonies in their study reinforced a common finding that participants preferred to interact with people from within their already-established groups, who invariably were similar to themselves in many ways and thus were not necessarily inclusive of newcomers. Furthermore, it has been noted that sport events can act to divide and exclude those who do not possess the necessary capital to participate (Richardson & Fletcher, 2018; Spaaij & Westerbeek, 2010).

Nevertheless, parkrun originated as a running event for runners. Charting its modest inauguration to a 5 km time trial around Bushy Park in South West London in October 2004 represents well-trodden ground (see Bourne, 2014). The introductory event was remarkably low key, lo-fi (the timing tokens were hand-punched steel washers), and unofficial. There was no permission from the park and no insurance. There were 18 participants in total – 13 runners and five volunteers drawn from nearby running club, Ranelagh Harriers, as well as other local clubs. Saturday was chosen because most organised races were on a Sunday, whilst 9 a.m. was the preferred time so that the runners would be out of the way and would minimise disruption to other park users later in the day. And 5 km was the elected distance because (at the time) most participants could be finished within 30 minutes. As has been widely documented, its founder, Paul Sinton-Hewitt, was facing a number of challenges in his life, having been made redundant from his marketing job, and side-lined with a long-term injury that prohibited him from training for a marathon, and (crucially) potential isolation from the running community. Paul grew up in South Africa where in his native Johannesburg several running clubs regularly arranged time trials for participants to appraise their progress and then to socialise afterwards. The emphasis on human interaction – in effect relegating the run to secondary importance – was the precondition for the original Bushy Park time trial, that runners and volunteers would assemble later to have a coffee and converse with one another. Thus, whilst the antecedents to parkrun are often labelled as altruistic, by the founder’s own admission there was also a hint of selfishness in seeking to remain connected.

The maiden event in Bushy Park brought together white, middle-class, middle-aged runners, but as Nick Pearson is keen to emphasise, the initial design was founded on egalitarian principles, where everyone taking part was valued equally. To illustrate this, back then, there was a prize for both first and last places. This desire to be inclusive is manifest in later adaptations, for example, the designated tail-walker role. This ensures that at every parkrun event a self-nominated volunteer takes on the responsibility of running or walking with the last participant to provide encouragement, as well as guaranteeing to take on the mantle of last place. Consequently, no parkrun participant need fear any perceived stigma or judgement of being the final finisher. Another characteristic feature which is indicative of parkrun’s claim to be inclusive is the briefing which marks the beginning of each parkrun event. The briefing sets the scene, welcoming first-timers and visitors, and explains the course, the conditions, and points of safety. The familiar recital notably includes accolades for the team of volunteers, as well as congratulations for any milestone achievements.

Sinton-Hewitt encapsulates the philosophy of parkrun in stressing its malle-ability and informality:

[P]eople do what they want to do. All we are doing here is building a playground, and if you want to come and take part, you can. People have recognised that it’s free in every sense of the word – it’s not just that you don’t have to pay, but you’re not signing your life away either, there are no terms and conditions, just the same obligations you’d have as a citizen walking down the street.’²

In this sense parkrun is about creating an ‘ecosystem’ that encourages movement, in the company of others, in the outdoors (Wellington, 2021). The events are regular, predictable, and (pandemic aside) permanent but without any requirement or compulsion to participate each week. There is an onus on people being able to take part in whatever manner suits them, whether that be through walking, jogging, running, volunteering (in a range of roles), or simply coming along to watch and socialise. Furthermore, by taking place in local parks and open spaces, this increases accessibility (McIntosh, 2021). There is also a growing body of research which has shown that carrying out physical activity in a natural environment, so-called green exercise, confers greater health and wellbeing benefits in comparison to undertaking the same exercise indoors or in a built-up environment (e.g. Donnelly & Macintyre, 2019; Shanahan et al., 2016).

It is commendable that whilst parkrun has expanded and evolved over time, at its core the democratic values of the founder endure, namely, to create opportunities for participation that are accessible, socially oriented, and welcoming to all, regardless of motivation or competence. There are competitive runners whose primary motivation may be ranking and records, but these are by no means the defining quality of the events. Joggers, walkers, pushchair pushers, those trying to keep pace with their canines, children, and grandparents comingle alongside the committed diehards, and seasoned runners bedecked in athletic club attire. Put simply, no perceptible hierarchy exists between the hares and the tortoises. Moreover, there is a resolve to minimise potential barriers to participation. There is no upper age limit, whilst at the other end, accompanied children as young as four are allowed to participate. No special clothing or equipment is necessary, no restrictions of a time-limited programme, and there are no direct costs. Furthermore, as stated framing parkrun as ‘a run, not a race’ invites the participation of groups who do not identify with the traditional stereotypical views of running.

Parkrun events are reliant upon a significant number of volunteers, instantly identifiable by their high-vis-jackets, who are responsible for their organisation and delivery. Volunteering opportunities at parkrun is also a means of increasing inclusivity, as people who do not wish to or are physically unable can participate by volunteering. Roles are varied and include run director, course marshals, tail runner, timekeepers, and barcode scanners. There are also volunteers who mark the route, manage the finish funnel, and lead the first-timers’ briefing. Additionally, there are occasional roles such as guiding blind or partially sighted runners. And afterwards results are processed, tokens sorted, and volunteers recruited for subsequent weeks. Arguably less well known is the parkrun Ambassador Programme, a support network of volunteers who have applied for a number of different volunteer roles through a formal recruitment process. They are described as an ‘essential and valuable resource to parkrun’ in supporting events and assisting the small, central parkrun staff team. Their roles, including outreach and translation ambassadors, typically sit outside of the volunteering that takes place at a weekend parkrun event. It has been widely reported that volunteering at parkrun helps foster a sense of involvement, although the reciprocity of volunteering is also evident in the support and encouragement given by parkrunners to each other (Stevinson et al., 2015). The parkrun Health and Wellbeing Survey in 2018 identified that a large proportion of respondents reported that volunteering at parkrun had a positive impact on their health and wellbeing, greater than the potential benefits for parkrunners. The following top five outcomes were rated better or much better due to volunteering at parkrun: feeling part of a community (84.4 per cent), meeting new people (79 per cent), ability to help people (72.4 per cent), happiness (68.7 per cent), and an ability to fulfil moral duties (65 per cent).

That parkrun entails running, jogging, or walking a 5 km course is noteworthy, not least because it is integrally a physical challenge which requires moderate-to-vigorous effort (Wiltshire & Merchant, 2021). The distance is important in respect that it provides an accessible entry point for individuals to take part in regular physical activity. This is borne out by the earliest academic research published on parkrun by Stevinson and Hickson (2014), who report its appeal to groups that are statistically less likely to exercise. Their study of 7,308 parkrunners found that most participants were men and aged between 35 and 54 years. They also found that more than a quarter of those on registration described themselves as ‘non-runners,’ and a further 26 per cent categorised themselves as ‘occasional runners.’ Almost half of those ‘non-runners’ were overweight or obese, more than half were female, and 61 per cent were middle-aged or older. This led the authors to conclude that this form of physical activity was inclusive and effective at reaching historically excluded populations.

These findings were echoed in parkrun’s first annual review in 2016, where it was reported that 38,038 previously inactive individuals were now running, that there were 178,812 female first-timers and that 14 per cent of parkruns were by those aged 55 and over (parkrun, 2016). In 2019, nearly 20 per cent of parkruns in the UK were completed by people who did one bout or less of exercise per week when they registered for parkrun. Meanwhile evidence suggested that individuals who are ‘inactive’ (less than once per week) and ‘just active’ (about once per week) increased their physical activity by around 75 per cent as a result of parkrun participation (Wellington, 2021). In seeking to explore potential factors which encouraged initial participation and subsequently helped to sustain attendance, Stevinson et al. (2015) identified the overarching themes of freedom and reciprocity from parkrunners’ individual accounts. Their qualitative study highlighted the accessible, inclusive ethos of parkrun, the provision of achievement opportunities, and a supportive social environment, along with natural outdoor settings and an integrated volunteer system. As a potential point of departure, whilst the aforementioned studies emphasised inclusion, such claims need to be tempered by the observation made by some that the numbers of ethnic minorities and individuals from lower socio-economic groups are disproportionately low (Stevinson &...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: The Rise of parkrun
• 2 An Inclusive Community?
• 3 Volunteering and Reciprocity
• 4 A Panacea for Health and Wellbeing?
• 5 ‘A Run, Not a Race’
• 6 Becoming a (park)runner
• 7 Green Exercise
• 8 Conclusion: The Future of parkrun
• Index