This study aims to help professionals in the field of running and running-related technology (i.e., sports watches and smartphone applications) to address the needs of runners. It investigates the various runner types—in terms of their attitudes, interests, and opinions (AIOs) with regard to running—and studies how they differ in the technology they use. Data used in this study were drawn from the standardized online Eindhoven Running Survey 2016 (ERS2016). In total, 3723 participants completed the questionnaire. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to identify the different running types, and crosstabs obtained insights into the use of technology between different typologies. Based on the AIOs, four distinct runner types were identified: casual individual, social competitive, individual competitive, and devoted runners. Subsequently, we related the types to their use of sports watches and apps. Our results show a difference in the kinds of technology used by different runner types. Differentiation between types of runners can be useful for health professionals, policymakers involved in public health, engineers, and trainers or coaches to adapt their services to specific segments, in order to make use of the full potential of running-related systems to support runners to stay active and injury-free and contribute to a healthy lifestyle.
The ambition to host mega sports events is (or can be) perfectly justifiable with various arguments. The most persistently used argument is the supposed financial or direct economic gain for the host economy, of which the compelling body of evidence is discouraging. This implies that the justification for hosting should come from a different, broader economic angle. This paper provides a critical discussion of the myriad of economic and frequently intangible effects that could be put forward in the public debate preceding the submission of a bid. Paradoxically, most of these effects are not, or infrequently employed in public debates.
The scope of technology has expanded towards areas such as sports and vitality, offering significant challenges for engineering designers. However, only little is known about the underlying design and engineering processes used within these fields. Therefore, this paper aims to get an indepth understanding of these type of processes. During a three-day design competition (Hackathon), three groups of engineers were challenged to develop experience-able prototypes in the field of sports and vitality. Their process was monitored based on the Reflective Transformative Design process (RTD-process) framework, describing the various activities part of the design process. Groups had to keep track of their activities, and six group reflection-sessions were held. Results show that all groups used an open and explorative approach, they frequently swapped between activities, making them able to reflect on their actions. While spending more time on envisioning and creating a clear vision seem to relate to the quality of the design concept.
